Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutZMA201600015 Staff Report Zoning Map Amendment 2016-12-06COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA201600015 Oakleigh Staff: J.T. Newberry, Senior Planner; Elaine Echols, FAICP, Principal Planner Planning Commission Public Hearing: December 6, 2016 Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: To Be Determined Owner: Oakleigh Albemarle, LLC c/o George Ray, Jr. Applicant: Steve Edwards, Edwards designStudio, PLLC Acreage: 8.82 acres Rezone from: Amend previously approved NMD zoning (ZMA200700004) TMP: 04500-00-00-026A0 Location: Located on the south side of Rio Rd. West across from its intersection with Woodburn Rd. By-right use: Limited to those uses permitted by-right on pages 27-29 of the existing code of development approved on December 12, 2007 Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes Proposal: Request to amend previously approved application plan, code of development and proffers to permit the construction of an assisted living facility on the rear half of the site and provide a third connection for emergency access. Applicant also proposes to reduce cash proffers to $5,447.57 per attached unit and $7,333.18 per detached unit. Requested # of Dwelling Units: up to 109 dwelling units (this is the same number of dwelling units approved under ZMA200700004) DA (Development Area): Places29 Master Plan (Neighborhood 1) Character of Property: The property is entirely vacant. The front third is open pasture and the back two-thirds contain mature trees. Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses; Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) – retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space. Use of Surrounding Properties: Berkmar Crossing lies to the east of the property and the Garden Spot lies to the west. Charlottesville Health and Rehabilitation Center is adjacent to the rear property line. Three lots within the Berkeley subdivision abut the side property line towards the east. A small townhouse development and single-family detached residences off Woodburn Road lie across Rio Road West. Factors Favorable: 1. The proposed uses in Scenario A are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for use and density. 2. The proposed assisted living facility will provide a needed housing-type for seniors. 3. The proposed assisted living facility supports a targeted industry under the County’s Economic Development Policy. 4. A required emergency access will provide an interparcel connection that addresses a known deficiency in emergency access to an existing facility. 5. An assisted living facility and commercial uses in Scenario A will provide higher tax revenues than Scenario B and may create sufficient tax revenue to mitigate impacts from residential uses on the property. Factors Unfavorable: 1. The proposed cash proffers are not in keeping with the cash proffer policy in place when the zoning was originally approved. 2. Scenario A would result in less greenspace and fewer trees being preserved than what is currently required under the existing zoning. 3. The minimum required number of residential dwelling units (14) creates the opportunity for development that may be inconsistent with the Urban Density Residential designation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of ZMA201600015 Oakleigh provided technical revisions are made to the proffers and application plan, as necessary, prior to the Board of Supervisors meeting. 2 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 STAFF PERSON: J.T. Newberry PLANNING COMMISSION: December 6, 2016 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: To Be Determined PETITION PROJECT: ZMA201600015 Oakleigh MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio TAX MAP/PARCEL: 045000000026A0 LOCATION: Located on the south side of Rio Road West across from its intersection with Woodburn Road PROPOSAL: Amend previously approved Proffers, Code of Development and Application Plan to allow a 140-bed assisted living facility on the rear half of the site. The amended plan also seeks to allow the site to develop according to the existing approved Application Plan with a revised Code of Development and Proffers. PETITION: Rezone 8.82 acres from Neighborhood Model district which allows residential uses mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units per acre to Neighborhood Model district which allows residential uses mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses at a density of 3-34 units per acre. This request seeks to amend the Code of Development to add a 140-bed assisted living facility in Blocks III, IV or V of a revised Application Plan, which would reduce the total maximum dwelling units from 109 units at a density of 12.3 units per acre to 36 units at a density of 4.0 units per acre. This request also seeks to preserve the ability to develop the existing approved Application Plan that proposes a maximum of 109 dwelling units at 12.3 units per acre. Under either Application Plan, the request seeks to amend Proffers #1, 2, 4 and 6 as follows: amend Proffer #1 to provide $19,100 cash per required affordable housing unit to meet the 15% Affordable Requirement after the certificate of occupancy is issued for the 52nd dwelling unit (the existing proffer requires constructing 7.5% of total required affordable housing units and providing $19,100 cash in lieu of 7.5% remaining required affordable housing units); amend Proffer #2 to reduce cash proffers from $17,500 to $7,333.18 for each single-family detached dwelling, from $11,900 to $5,447.57 for each single-family attached dwelling that is not an affordable dwelling unit, and from $12,400 to $7,419.91 for each multi-family dwelling unit that is not an affordable unit; amend Proffer #4 to reduce the number of trees preserved under the plan with an assisted living facility from 39 trees to 13 trees and reduce the required bonding from $29,000 to $10,000; eliminate Proffer #6 which required additional erosion and sediment controls to achieve a sediment removal rate of 80% for the property. OVERLAYS: Entrance Corridor (EC), Steep Slopes (Managed) and Airport Impact Area (AIA) PROFFERS: Yes COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: Urban Density Residential – residential (6.01 – 34 units/ acre); supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses and Urban Mixed Use (in Centers); supporting uses such as retail, residential, commercial, employment, office, institutional, and open space in Neighborhood 1 of the Places29 Master Plan. CHARACTER OF THE AREA The property is located at 547 Rio Road West (Route 631) directly across the street from Woodburn Road (Route 659). The portion of this property adjacent to Rio Road contains an open pasture, which represents roughly one-third of the property. The remaining two-thirds of the property contains mature trees (see Attachment A). Berkmar Crossing is an adjacent commercial property that lies east of the subject property and contains a mix of office, medical and retail spaces. The Garden Spot is an adjacent nursery and landscaping company located to the west. A small townhouse community is located across Rio Road from the property. Charlottesville Health and Rehabilitation Center (formerly Heritage Hall) is 3 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 adjacent to the parcel at the rear of the property and the Berkeley residential subdivision lies to the South. The intersection of Rio Road and Berkmar Drive is approximately 800 feet to the east. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The Board of Supervisors previously approved a zoning map amendment (ZMA200700004) to rezone the property from R-6 to NMD to allow a maximum of 109 dwelling units and 28,800 square feet of commercial space, subject to an application plan, code of development (COD) and proffers (see Attachment B). Subsequently, the applicant obtained final site plan approval (SDP200800101) for 108 dwelling units and 28,800 square feet of commercial space. The applicant is now seeking to make changes to the original rezoning by requesting approval for two different layouts identified as “Scenario A” and “Scenario B” (see Sheets 6A and 6B of Attachment C). Scenario A would allow for an assisted living facility with up to 140 beds at the rear of the site. This layout contains five buildings across five blocks. The buildings fronting on Rio Road match those approved in the 2007 rezoning. Building C is in Block III and shows a 13,680 square foot office building and Block IV proposes a single row of six townhouses with one car garages. Finally, Block V contains the approximately 56,000 square foot, two-story assisted living facility. Scenario B is the application plan approved under ZMA200700004. This layout is identical to Blocks I and II to Scenario A, but has significant differences at the rear of the site. Attachment B contains full details of this layout. “Scenario A” – Assisted Living Facility “Scenario B” – Existing Approved Application Plan with Revised Code of Development Although the layout for Scenario B is the same as the proposal in 2007, the owner is asking for increased flexibility under the COD for both Scenario A and Scenario B. The applicant wishes to allow a greater variety of uses across the development than what was previously approved. As an example, under the 2007 application plan, many of the commercial uses such as a barber shop, financial institution or dry cleaner were only permitted in Building A and Building B (this area was considered Block I in the 2007 plan). Under the current request, however, these types of uses would be permitted in Building A, Building B and Building C (or Blocks I, II and III under the current request). Other uses, such as a medical or dental office are proposed to be permitted by-right throughout the development, where they were only previously approved only in Block I. A Assisted Living Facility Building C Townhouses 4 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 comprehensive side-by-side comparison of the existing and proposed permitted uses is found in the table shown in Attachment D. The current request also seeks to modify the existing proffers (see Attachment E). With respect to affordable housing and cash proffers, the applicant is seeking credit for 52 dwelling units that could have been constructed by-right under the then existing R-6 zoning. With this history in mind, the current request also seeks to provide cash in-lieu of all affordable units on 15% of the number of dwelling units beyond the 52nd dwelling unit. The existing proffer requires constructing 7.5% of total required affordable housing units and providing $19,100 cash in lieu of 7.5% remaining required affordable housing units. Similarly, the current request seeks to apply a 52 dwelling unit credit to a reduced per-unit cash proffer amount. Under both Scenario A and Scenario B, the applicant is proposing to reduce cash contributions for each dwelling unit after the certificate of occupancy is issued for the 52nd dwelling unit as follows: from $17,500 to $7,333.18 for each single-family detached dwelling, from $11,900 to $5,447.57 for each single-family attached dwelling that is not an affordable dwelling unit and from $12,400 to $7,419.91 for the remaining units. The current request also amends the proffers related to tree preservation. Under Scenario A, the number of trees currently proffered would be reduced from 34 trees to 13 trees. Accordingly, the bonding amount would also be reduced from $29,000 to $10,000. It is not clear if the applicant is seeking this revised proffer to also apply to Scenario B or if the existing tree preservation proffers are acceptable for that scenario. Finally, the request also seeks to eliminate the proffer for enhanced erosion and sediment control measures. The current proffer requires an 80% sediment removal rate (whereas current standards only require a 60% sediment removal rate). COMMUNITY MEETING The community meeting was held on August 31, 2016 at Northside Library. The applicant presented a history of the property and overview of the request. Approximately 15 attendees asked clarification questions about the remaining review process, the Neighborhood Model, stormwater management, screening from adjacent uses and traffic. These topics will be discussed later in the report. APPLICANT’S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant has provided several reasons for this request. He believes that there is a significant public need for additional assisted living facilities in Charlottesville and that need will continue as the population ages and the area remains an attractive destination for retirees. He would like to be able to market the site to an assisted living developer. He has said that the allowable unit types and permitted uses need to be expanded in order to respond to the current real estate market that continues to be impacted by recession. Under the 2007 plan, approximately 65% of the dwellings were to be condominiums which, according to the applicant, banks are currently unwilling to finance. These changes will help simplify a complex application plan and COD. He has requested credit toward cash proffers for the by-right potential of 52 dwelling units in 2007 because other more recent approvals have been afforded that credit. For the remaining units, he believes that the reduced amounts will bring the zoning into alignment with current state law. Regarding tree preservation, he has provided an arborist report indicating that the health of the trees to be removed is not good but the most significant trees will be retained under Scenario A and 5 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 Scenario B. He notes a substantial investment has been made to ensure that as many trees as possible are saved on the site. Finally, the applicant requests to remove the proffer related to enhance erosion and sediment control. This applicant considers this proffer to have been met when the erosion and sediment control plan was approved for the 2010 site plan. PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY  SDP200500062 – Preliminary site plan for 52 dwelling units under R-6 zoning (Withdrawn, 1-16- 2008)  ZMA200700004 – Rezoning to allow 109 dwelling units and 28,800 square feet of commercial space (Approved, 1-16-2008)  SUB200800290 – Final plat to create three lots on 8.822 acres and a 0.18 residue dedicated to public use (Withdrawn, 9-25-15)  SDP200800101 – Final site plan approval for 108 dwelling units and 28,800 square feet of commercial space (Approved, 5-11-2010) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Land Use: The Places29 Master Plan recommends two land uses for this area: Urban Density Residential and Urban Mixed Use (in Centers) for a Neighborhood Service Center (see Attachment F). The Neighborhood Service Center designation was intended to reflect the Oakleigh plan for a maximum of 28,800 square feet of non-residential uses along Rio Road. The remainder of the property remained Urban Density residential. Uses in the buildings along Rio Road in the Neighborhood Service Center are not intended to change with this rezoning request. Urban Density Residential provides for a density range of 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre and incorporates a range of dwelling types, as well as non-residential uses such as institutional, commercial, office and service uses. Scenario A proposes a minimum of 14 dwellings and a maximum of 62 dwellings, plus up to 140 beds in an assisted living facility. Scenario B continues to propose the same maximum of 109 dwelling units shown on the existing plan and would now also establish a 14 dwelling unit minimum where no minimum existed prior. Not counting the assisted living units, the maximum density under Scenario A would be 7.0 units per acre. Scenario B continues to have a maximum density of 12.3 dwelling units per acre. At the minimum level of residential development, the density for Scenario A would fall well below the minimum desired density of 6.01 dwelling units per acre because beds for assisted living facilities are not counted as residential dwelling units. If assisted living units were considered as dwelling units, then the minimum expected “density” under Scenario A would be 134 units on 8.82 acres, which yields 15.2 dwelling units per acre. The maximum density would be 22.9 dwelling units per acre. At the minimum level of residential development, the density for Scenario B would also fall well below the minimum desired density of 6.01 dwelling units per acre. In general, the addition of the non-residential uses to areas that were previously only residential is acceptable; however, with only a minimum of 14 residential dwelling units, there is a possibility for the development to become mainly an office park. Therefore, to ensure consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, a technical revision to the COD should show that a minimum of 53 dwelling units to be provided under Scenario B. This is the minimum number of dwelling units necessary to meet the low-end of the density range. This revision should also be clear that it would apply to Scenario A should an assisted living facility not be established. 6 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 An assisted living facility is a secondary use in the Urban Density Residential designation and a single building footprint above 20,000 square feet is only recommended by exception for this type of use. The proposed assisted living facility would have approximately 56,000 square feet and be two stories. Staff believes that an exception is justified because the building will be interior to the site and not along Rio Road and serves an important community need. The Neighborhood Model: A full analysis of the Neighborhood Model was done with the original rezoning. For that reason, it is not repeated here and only applicable principles are addressed. Applicable principles are explained below: Multi-modal Transportation Opportunities – This principle was not included in the 2007 analysis, but the mixture of uses under Scenario A or Scenario B makes it an important one to recognize. There are two bus stops within walking distance from entrance to the property and sidewalks throughout the site connect the blocks. The COD states that bike racks will be considered in Blocks I, II, III and V. This principle is met. Parks, Recreational Amenities and Open Space – Scenario A eliminates an important park feature in the original development and includes removal of many of the trees that are current attributes of the site. It reduces greenspace by 0.46 acres and the amenity area by 1.25 acres. However, these features cannot remain if an assisted living facility is placed on the site in the configuration proposed by the applicant. In addition, many residents of assisted living facilities have limited mobility and their needs for outdoor areas are not as great as in residential developments. A pocket park is still being provided in the center of site that meets the amenity and greenspace requirements for residential uses. This principle is met. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale – The most visible buildings in the development will front on Rio Road – Building A and Building B. They will be three stories and are not proposed to change in design from the 2007 approval. These are the most important buildings for creating a human scale along Rio Road. The proposed assisted living facility is a large, single footprint building and is also expected to be visible from the road. The issues were discussed in detail during the preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB was satisfied with the design because the assisted living facility is proposed to be two stories tall and the architecture is expected to maintain a level of consistency with Building A and Building B. Between these blocks are 36”-48” caliber oak trees, which will help subdue the massing. On site, provision of landscaping and windows will help to mitigate impacts to pedestrians. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability – As previously discussed, the applicant is proposing to change proffers for affordable housing. Currently, the proffers include construction of at least 7.5% of the units as affordable and then provide cash in lieu of units for the remaining 7.5%. With the proposed changes, if an assisted living facility is constructed, then a maximum of three units would be expected as affordable units. The Housing Director has affirmed that providing cash instead of constructing three units is acceptable in this situation. However, if Scenario B is developed, there would be no guarantee of constructed affordable units in the development unless the applicant only intends for the revised proffer to apply to Scenario A. With regards to affordability of the assisted living rooms, development under Scenario A could provide a unique opportunity for affordable housing. The Adult Services staff in the 7 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 Department of Social Services (DSS) reported there is a significant shortage of assisted living spaces for patients with limited income. The applicant worked with the Director of Social Services to confirm that auxiliary grants would be accepted by the proposed facility, which is not common among other assisted living facilities in the area. DSS is fully in support of this proposal. Still, although the proposed assisted living tenant has pledged to accept auxiliary grants, there is no guarantee there will be living spaces for patients with limited income without a proffer to this effect. Due to the lack of a commitment for affordability in the assisted living facility and construction of affordable units this principle is only partially met. Economic Development: The flexibility and mixture of uses requested by the proposed amendment is supported by several economic development goals and objectives of the Comprehensive Plan. Particularly for Scenario A, assisted living facilities fall within the County’s Health Services complementary target industry. According to the applicant, the construction of the assisted living facility will be a $28 million investment and create the equivalent of approximately 70 full-time jobs. The target industry study supports this segment of the Health Services industry for the same reasons the applicant cites as the justification for their request – support for an aging population and relocating retirees. The current request would provide additional flexibility by allowing the spaces within each block to be marketed to a broader spectrum of occupants. ADDITIONAL FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERD Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district The Neighborhood Model district (NMD) provides for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density, and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other. It also intends to provide an applicant with maximum flexibility in creating and implementing the general development plan and the code of development. As with the 2007 ZMA, staff believes the proposed amendment meets the goals of the NMD. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services Streets: Rio Road is the primary street that will be affected by the development. Impacts to this road were analyzed with the 2007 ZMA. The proposed assisted living facility under Scenario A is anticipated to create many fewer vehicle trips than the approved application plan. Schools: If the project is developed under Scenario A, there will be fewer students than if developed under Scenario B. Students living in this area would attend Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, Burley Middle School, and Albemarle High School. Impacts to schools were previously mitigated through cash proffers. In Scenario B, cash proffers would be reduced by approximately 2/3 from the existing proffer amounts. Fire and Rescue: The Seminole Trail Volunteer Fire Station on Berkmar Drive provides fire and rescue services to this area. The previously approved ZMA and site plan included two points of access which helped address needs for emergency services. But a third point of access would be required due to the size of the structure proposed under Scenario A. The applicant has proposed addressing this requirement by providing a connection to the access road for the Charlottesville Health and Rehabilitation Center (CHRC). 8 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 The exact location of the third point of access would be determined during the site plan review process and making this connection would provide a much desired second point of access for the CHRC site. Currently, the CHRC site has only one point of access, so this connection would address the needs to two sites that serve populations that require a higher than average level of service. Fire/Rescue has no objection with Scenario A or Scenario B as proposed. Utilities: The site is serviced by public water and sewer. No immediate or significant service capacity issues have been identified by Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority (RWSA) and Albemarle County Service Authority (ACSA). Anticipated impact on environmental, cultural and historic resources The proposed proffers eliminate the requirement for enhanced erosion and sediment control, which could be viewed as having an impact on water quality. Staff discovered during the review process that the approved erosion and sediment control plan has expired and therefore believes this proffer should remain. The remaining environmental, cultural and historic resources on the site are the large trees concentrated in the center of the property. Many of them are oaks above 40” in diameter and the applicant’s certified arborist estimates several to be over 100 years old. The existing application plan retains more trees (34 trees vs. 13 trees) and preserves more greenspace (2.29 acres vs. 1.83 acres) than what is proposed under Scenario A. That said, the applicant’s arborist has noted that the development under Scenario A would still preserve the seven most spectacular trees on the site. These trees are included in the 13 trees covered under revised Proffer #3 for tree preservation. Additionally, the arborist notes that eight of the 34 trees covered under the existing tree preservation proffer are showing signs of decline and/or are structurally compromised. Staff believes that the tradeoff of tree retention for an assisted living facility at this location is acceptable. Clarity in the proffers is still needed as to whether development under Scenario B would retain the 34 trees and the appropriate bonding amount to ensure such tree retention. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties The impacts of the development on nearby and surrounding properties were assessed with the original zoning. Mitigation of visual impacts has already been described in this report. In addition, landscaping shown on the approved site plan is not expected to change between the existing approval and Scenario A or Scenario B. Staff believes the approved landscaping plan meets today’s ordinances and adequately buffers the site under either development scenario. Public need and justification for the change An aging population and an influx of retirees to the Charlottesville-Albemarle area creates a ripe opportunity to serve a growing market under Scenario A. There is no requirement to conduct a formal Virginia Certificate of Public Need process for this type of facility, however, support for the need in our area has been confirmed by the Director of Social Services. Additionally, flexibility in provision of different unit types allows for an owner to more nimbly respond to market conditions. PROFFERS Area demographics and market information can demonstrate the need to amend the application plan, but there is somewhat less support for the request to amend certain proffers. The applicant justifies a reduction in cash proffers by suggesting the revised amounts would be more consistent 9 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 with state law, and further requests that they only be applicable when the number of dwelling units constructed exceeds the 52 dwelling units that could have been built under the previous R-6 zoning. These justifications conflict with the Board’s most recent actions on reducing cash proffer amounts and the recently repealed cash proffer policy. The cash proffer policy which was in place at the time of the original rezoning said that credit was not to be given for dwelling units permitted under existing zoning regulations, except where there was no increase or only a small increase in density or where substantial upgrades to design/development standards were being provided. In 2013, the Board of Supervisors accepted cash proffers for Avon Park II that allowed credit for 11 out of 65 units based on the by-right ability of an earlier zoning. Avon Park II had been zoned R1 in 2007, then was rezoned to R6. In 2013, the owner asked that credit be given for the by-right development under the R1 zoning. Since 2013, the Board has accepted credit for by-right units by policy. However, none of the instances where the Board accepted that credit have been as dramatic as providing credit for almost half of the total units and at present there is no cash proffer policy. Nevertheless, R-6 zoning is not currently in place and staff notes the applicant requested the same credit in 2007. The Planning Commission did not recommend approval and the applicant subsequently provided cash proffers for all but the affordable units. Whether the Board’s practice to give credit from 2012 to 2015 affects this request is debatable, but based on the cash proffer policy that was in place when ZMA200700004 was approved, staff cannot support the credit for this request. Regarding cash proffer amounts, the applicant has also made a case in the Supplemental Comment Response Letter that Scenario A will generate retail and commercial tax revenue that fully mitigates its impact on public facilities (see Attachment G). Using reduced cash proffer amounts, the applicant has said that the cash value of proffers would be approximately $130,355 and this amount would be exceeded by future tax revenue. Not having seen information on expected tax revenue, staff cannot confirm that the tax revenue will exceed expected impacts. Staff may be able to provide additional information on the tax revenue that supports the applicant’s claim at the Dec. 6 Planning Commission hearing. Using the existing proffer amounts for dwelling units and affordable housing, the tax revenue would need to equal or exceed $289,900. For Scenario B, assessment of the change has been made consistent with other requests for reductions in cash proffers on previously approved projects. In September 2014, the Board of Supervisors directed the Fiscal Impact Advisory Committee (FIAC) to provide advice and recommendations to the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors on revisions to the credit provisions and the per unit cash proffer amounts of the Cash Proffer Policy. FIAC made its recommendation to the Board and Commission in July 2015 including a reduction in cash proffers to the following amounts: $4,918.00 for each single family detached unit, and; $3,845.00 for each single family attached unit or townhouse. The recommended reductions were based on the County’s FY 2015-2016 capital improvements program (CIP, which covers future years 1-5) and capital needs assessment (CNA, which covers future years 6-10). The CIP and CNA considered a reduced number of projects proposing new capital improvements or projects that would expand the capacity of existing facilities; projects that would merely maintain existing facilities without expanding capacity were not considered. Updated information based on the 2016-2017 CIP would yield the following amounts: 10 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 $7333.18 for each single family detached unit; $5447.57 for each single family attached unit or townhouse; $7419.91 for each apartment or condominium. The applicant’s justification for a reduced amount, in addition to taking credit for the first 52 units, has not included a sufficient justification for the reduction. The cash proffered and accepted by the Board when the property was originally rezoned was consistent with the cash proffer policy and was intended to address the impacts from the rezoning. The owner signed the current proffer form stating the proffers are voluntarily as part of the rezoning and acknowledged they are reasonable. The proffers were approved under prior legislation and the County is not required to evaluate this request under the new proffer legislation. Based on these items and past actions of the Board for a similar type of request, staff cannot support the applicant’s request to reduce the cash proffer amounts. SUMMARY Staff believes that the proposed rezoning under Scenario A would be advantageous to the County and not create adverse impacts. After looking at potential tax revenues, staff may also be able to affirm that the value of the tax revenue mitigates the impacts of the residential uses such that no cash proffers for residential units would be necessary. Staff does not agree with the applicant that a) cash proffers should only apply to units 53 – 109, based on zoning that preceded the 2007 amendment and b) that the amounts be reduced to those recommended by FIAC. Development under Scenario B will create impacts from all residential units. In keeping with the Board of Supervisors’ most recent actions on requests to reduce the cash proffer amount, staff cannot support the applicant’s proposed reduction to cash proffers. Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this request: 1. The proposed uses in Scenario A are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan recommendations for use and density. 2. The proposed assisted living facility will provide a needed housing-type for seniors. 3. The proposed assisted living facility supports a targeted industry under the County’s Economic Development Policy. 4. A required emergency access will provide an interparcel connection that addresses a known deficiency in emergency access to an existing facility. 5. An assisted living facility and commercial uses in Scenario A will provide higher tax revenues than Scenario B and may create sufficient tax revenue to mitigate impacts from residential uses on the property. Staff has identified the following factors which are unfavorable to this request: 4. The proposed cash proffers are not in keeping with the cash proffer policy in place when the zoning was originally approved. 5. Scenario A would result in less greenspace and fewer trees being preserved than what is currently required under the existing zoning. 6. The minimum required number of residential dwelling units (14) creates the opportunity for development that may be inconsistent with the Urban Density Residential designation. RECOMMENDATION Staff believes that Scenario A provides for uses that are needed in the community and where the benefits provided by the alternative layout outweigh the concerns. Providing the option for Scenario A or B creates flexibility to address different types of housing and commercial needs in the 11 ZMA201600015 Oakleigh PC Public Hearing 12/6/2016 community. Staff can support ZMA201600015 if it can be shown that future tax revenues mitigate the potential impacts of residential units in Scenario B and if the following changes are made before the Board of Supervisor’s meeting:  No changes to cash proffers are made for Scenario B  Technical changes are made related to tree preservation and affordable housing proffers and the COD for Scenario B  The COD is revised to require a minimum of 53 dwelling units under Scenario B and under Scenario A if an assisted living use is not established  Other technical changes to the application as necessary to provide clarity for the administration of development under Scenario A and Scenario B PLANNING COMMISSION MOTION: A. If the ZMA is recommended for approval: Move to recommend approval of ZMA201600015 with proffers as recommended by staff. B. If the ZMA is recommended for denial: Move to recommend denial of ZMA201600015 with the reasons for denial. ATTACHMENTS A – Area Map B – Staff Report and Planning Commission Minutes for ZMA200700004 C – Proposed Application Plan and Code of Development D – Existing and Proposed Permitted Uses Table from Code of Development E – Proposed Proffers F – Comprehensive Plan Map G – Supplemental Comment Response Letter Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels Attachment A: Area Map Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources October 25, 2016 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org 434) 296-5832 Legend Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 300 ft Direct Dial: 434-951-5709 WILLIAMS M U L L E N vlong@williamsmullen.com October 4, 2016 Via Email: jnewberrykalbemarle.org JT Newberry Senior Planner Albemarle County Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902 Re: ZMA 2016-00015 (Oakleigh) Supplemental Comment Response Letter Dear JT: In addition to the comment response letter our project team submitted last week in connection with ZMA 2016-00015, Oakleigh (the "Project"), we would like to address staff comments related to Oakleigh's proffers in this supplemental letter. The attached Proffer Statement dated June 30, 2016 (the "Proffers") has not been changed but has been included for ease of reference. It is our contention that the Proffers sufficiently mitigate any impacts from the proposed rezoning. The zoning is outlined in the Application Plan dated September 29, 2016 (the "Application Plan") and other materials comprising the application which were previously resubmitted to your attention last week. The Application Plan proposes 16 loft apartments to be built within Block I and II (i.e. 16 units of Multifamily A). Also proposed are 6 Townhomes in Block IV (Multifamily B). Assuming a 15% affordable housing requirement, the Applicant will pay a cash -in -lieu amount for 3 of the 22 total units equal to the value of such affordable housing units, i.e. $19,100. Thus, we contend the resulting $130,355 in cash proffers will be sufficient to mitigate the impacts of the Project on increased capacities of public facilities. PROFFERS / IMPACT FEES TOTAL $/UNIT UNITS Multifamily A $19.985 $31,845 13 Multifamily B $231070 $3,845 6 Affordability Proffer $57,300 $19,100 3 Total Proffers $130,355 The loft apartments are estimated to be approximately small one to two-bedroom units, which are not likely to attract families with children. The only other residential units proposed for the Project are six (6) townhouse units. If one were to assume that each townhome might generate two school-age children, which is likely on the very high-end given the location and design of the Project, the Project will result in an estimated increase of merely 12 school children. We contend the $130,355 that the Owner will pay in cash proffers will sufficiently mitigate any resulting public school capacity issues from an estimated increase in a dozen school children, particularly given the retail and commercial tax revenues that will offset any impacts of the residential units. Direct Dial: 434-951-5709 WILLIAMS M U L L E N viong@williamsmullen.com Importantly, the cash proffers approved in 2008 (ZMA 2007-00004) were offered when the proposal included residential units in place of the Assisted Living Facility. Now, only 11% of the Project will consist of residential units, and the resulting impacts on public facilities will be much lower. In addition, the Project proposes more total green space compared to the Project's total residential space. The Project proposes 1.83 acres of green space or 21% of the Property, including a pocket park. In addition, the Project now includes significantly more office and residential uses than was previously proposed. The proposed personal office space (which could include professional office space), retail uses, and particularly the proposed Assisted Living Facility, will generate commercial tax revenue that will offset any impacts of the residential units. The Assisted Living Facility will also address a critical community need. The Albemarle population is declining in age, and more retirees are moving to the area every day. This accelerating aging population of the community will need ever more assisted living services. The proposed rezoning application was initiated largely because of the interest of an Assisted Living Facility. Thus the Project will actually address and satisfy public facilities needs rather than add to the burden of public facilities. Finally, in 2008 when the project was first rezoned, it did not receive by -right credit for the 52 units that could have been developed on the site with an R6 zoning, as shown on the attached conceptual drawing as Exhibit "A". If such a credit were to fairly be given in the present circumstances, it would more than cover the 22 units proposed. We believe it is appropriate for the Project to be credited for the 52 units that could have been built under the previous by -right zoning. In sum, the Project's substantial reduction of residential units while keeping with its commitment to greenspace (as exemplified by the preservation of large numbers of significant oak trees and the creation of a pocket park), coupled with its plan to develop an Assisted Living Facility to address a significant community need, will likely lead to less of an impact on increased capacity of public facilities and a proffer of $130,355 in addition to the tax revenues generated by the Project's commercial spaces will likely sufficiently mitigate any impacts that do result. We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of this additional information. Should you have any questions or comments, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Valerie W. Long Enclosures cc: George W. Ray, Oakleigh Albemarle, LLC Steve Edwards, Edwards Design Studio Alan Franklin, Alan Franklin Engineering 32103070_4 2 Direct Dial: 434-951-5709 WILLIAMS M U L L E N viong@williamsmullen.com Exhibit A Conceptual Plan showing 52 by -right units 32103070_4 M1hMn�ll N4 MSI"4i ! � W pf� IMErnln :n v rxs srrc r w...� ♦ �`v 4101r.7{.uC'F:Ca1 r j' ln� _ (LWIiYI� � • ry `4� .. •..... ._. �j�' _�./I � ♦� LLL_ _ rw.� �. l I • t[ iii S '� � / • •,[•� '1 ..wi w.r nTz.Al 19. PW rt, ".,...i 3 COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE PLANNING STAFF REPORT SUMMARY Project Name: ZMA 07-04 Oakleigh Farm Staff: Claudette Grant Planning Commission Public Hearing: Board of Supervisors Public Hearing: October 30, 2007 December 12, 2007 Owners: George Ray Applicant: Terra Concepts represented by Steve Edwards Acreage: 8.82 Rezone: 8.82 acres from R-6 to Neighborhood Model District TMP: Tax Map 45, Parcel 26A By -right use: 53 dwelling units and up to 78 dwelling units with a density bonus or other Location: 547 Rio Road West (Route 631) supporting uses permitted in R-6 such as directly across the street from Woodburn Road schools, churches, and clubs by special use Route 659) (See Attachments A and B) permit. Magisterial District: Rio Proffers: Yes Proposal: Rezone to provide 109 dwelling units Requested # of Dwelling Units: 109 and up to 28,800 square feet of commercial space. DA (Development Area): Neighborhood One Comp. Plan Designation: Urban Density Residential Character of Property: Along Rio Road the Use of Surrounding Properties: Along Rio property contains an open pasture which is Road, Berkmar Crossing lies to the east of the roughly 1/3 of the property. The remaining 2/3 of property and the Garden Spot lies to the west. A the property contains mature trees, a house, small townhouse community is across Rio Road barn, bomb shelter, and a few smaller areas not from the property. Heritage Hall is adjacent to covered by mature tree canopy. the parcel at the back of the property and the Berkeley subdivision lies to the South. The intersection of Rio Road and U.S. Route 29 is approximately 1/3 of a mile away. Factors Favorable: Factors Unfavorable: 1. The proposal meets most of the 1. Impacts on public facilities are not principles of the Neighborhood Model. appropriately offset through proffers meeting the County's cash proffer policy 2. The applicant is proposing to preserve or the provision of public improvements. 39 of the existing mature trees. 2. Timing of payment for affordable units needs to be better addressed. 3. The provision of a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall needs to be addressed. 4. The pedestrian connection to Berkeley needs to be addressed. 5. The limitation of square footage for retail vs. office use needs to be clearly stated in the Code of Development and be consistent with the plan and proffer. Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 6. An easement or agreement allowing the interconnection of adjacent property needs to be provided. 7. The proffers need technical revisions. 8. The Code of Development needs technical revisions. 9. ARB comments need to be addressed. RECOMMENDATION: Without resolution of the aforementioned outstanding issues, staff cannot recommend approval. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval of this proposal to the Board inclusive of proffers, code of development, and the general development plan, staff recommends that this recommendation be based on resolution of the nine (9) outstanding issues listed above before the Board acts on this rezoning. Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 STAFF PERSON: Claudette Grant PLANNING COMMISSION: October 30, 2007 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: December 12, 2007 ZMA 2007- 004 Oakleigh Farm Request for approval of parking waiver PETITION PROPOSAL: Rezone 8.82 acres from R-6 zoning district which allows residential uses and 6 units/acre to NMD - Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and 3 — 34 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 109 for a density of 12.3 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential (6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses. Neighborhood 1 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 547 Rio Road West (Route 631) directly across the street from Woodburn Road Route 659) TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM: 45/P: 26A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio CHARACTER OF THE AREA The property is located at 547 Rio Road West (Route 631) directly across the street from Woodburn Road (Route 659). The portion of this property adjacent to Rio Road contains an open pasture, which is roughly 1/3 of the property. The remaining 2/3 of the property contains mature trees, a house, barn, bomb shelter, and a few smaller areas not covered by a mature tree canopy. Berkmar Crossing, a commercial property, is adjacent to the east of the subject property and the Garden Spot, a landscape business is located to the west. A small townhouse community is located across Rio Road from the property. Heritage Hall, an elderly residential facility, is adjacent to the parcel at the rear of the property and the Berkeley residential subdivision lies to the South. The intersection of Rio Road and U.S. Route 29 is approximately 1/3 of a mile away. SPECIFICS OF THE PROPOSAL The applicant would like to rezone one parcel from R-6, residential to NMD, Neighborhood Model District. The proposal would include the development of 109 dwelling units, and up to 28,000 sq. ft. of commercial space. The primary entrance to this development would be on Rio Road with an interconnection to the adjacent Berkmar Crossing property. At the front of the property, the applicant is proposing residential uses on top of commercial space. The remainder of the parcel is proposed to be developed with a variety of residential units in the form of townhouses, multifamily, and two single family cottages surrounding an open space/green area in which the applicant intends to maintain a number of existing stately oak trees. The applicant has provided copies of the Code of Development for the Commission to review. The Code of Development has a number of technical deficiencies that must be resolved prior to rezoning approval. (See Attachment C) APPLICANT'S JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REQUEST The applicant proposes to provide a mixed-use development in keeping with the neighborhood model principles within the development area that complements the existing surroundings, respects the history of the property and provides some protection to the natural features of the site. 3 Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 PLANNING AND ZONING HISTORY Prior to 1980 this property was zoned R-2, residential. The applicant has stated that the property was owned by the Nuttycombe family from at least 1897 until 2002 when Louise Nuttycombe died. This property has been parceled off over the years. A house was built on the site in 1990. After the sale of the property in 2006, a building on the site, which was the old farm house was removed by demolition. BACKGROUND A work session with the Planning Commission was held on June 19, 2007 in order to introduce the Commission to the project, provide an opportunity for public comment and discuss the following issues: The appropriateness of the applicant's proposed commercial uses The necessity of a buffer to screen the proposal from adjacent properties The need to bond trees that are proposed to be retained The need to investigate a pedestrian connection to Berkeley subdivision The proposed form and massing along Rio Road and the way that form relates to existing structures along Rio. Since the work session, the applicant decided to provide revisions to the code of development and increase the residential units from 101 to 109. The applicant has agreed to limit the square footage of retail space to 14,400 square feet as requested by the Planning Commission and provide the balance of non-residential space for office use, bringing the total non-residential square footage in this development to 28,000 square feet. The entrance to the site has been reconfigured as requested by the Planning Commission, so that it lines up with Woodburn Rd. During the work session, the slip ramp was discussed as an emergency entrance. The applicant has provided the slip ramp for emergency situations only and the County Engineer is satisfied with this solution. The Commission asked the applicant to discuss the addition of a screening buffer with the adjacent Heritage Hall property owner(s). The revised plan shows an amenity area adjacent to the Heritage Hall property. The applicant has not indicated or provided information regarding a discussion with Heritage Hall about this issue. The Commission also agreed that the applicant should attempt to provide a pedestrian connection to Berkeley by meeting with residents of Berkeley. The applicant has not indicated or provided information regarding a meeting with the residents of Berkeley regarding this issue. A detailed summary of questions asked of the Commission and the Commission's response is provided in Attachment D. CONFORMITY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Urban Density residential at a density of between 6.01 to 20 dwellings per acre, with possible densities of up to 34 dwellings per acre under a planned development approach. The Comprehensive Plan does not contain any specific recommendations related to this parcel or its immediate surroundings. The following recommendations guide the Urban Density Designation: Urban Density Residential areas are intended to accommodate all dwelling types as well as institutional uses such as places of worship, public and private schools, and early childhood education centers including day care centers and preschools. Urban Density Residential designations are not intended for development at densities below 6 dwellings per acre. Developments within an Urban Density Residential area are expected to occur 4 Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 within the designated range of 6.01 to 34 dwelling units per acre and, to the greatest extent practicable, to maximize the developed density with a form in keeping with the Neighborhood Model. Development densities within the Urban Density Residential area should ultimately be based on environmental criteria, road function and condition, available utilities, adjacent land uses, and site requirements. It is anticipated that Urban Density Residential areas will accommodate areas of nonresidential land uses on the scale of Neighborhood Service and Office Service as defined later in the Land Use chapter of the Comprehensive Plan. Based on the preceding recommendations for Urban Density residential, staff believes the residential component of the applicant's proposal is in keeping with the Urban Density residential designation. Specifically, the applicant is proposing a mix of residential uses townhouse, multifamily, and condos above commercial space) at a density of 12.3 units per acre. Regarding the non-residential uses, the Comprehensive Plan recommends that neighborhood commercial -scaled uses be less than 40,000 sq. ft. and that office -service scaled uses be less than 150,000 sq. ft. The applicant proposes a maximum of 28,000 sq. ft. of non- residential space on his property for office and retail/service uses. The following information was part of the original analysis provided to the Planning Commission. During the work session, the Planning Commission responded to the issue regarding commercial square footage by limiting the amount of square feet of retail use, and as previously mentioned in this report, the applicant has responded accordingly. As discussed at the Planning Commission worksession, the project is proposed adjacent to Berkmar Crossing, which has a Commercial Service designation in the Comprehensive Plan and provides a total of 111,000 sq. ft. of non-residential space with 81,000 sq. ft. in office space and 30,000 sq. ft. in retail and service uses. The appropriateness of Neighborhood Service scaled commercial in the Urban Density Residential is based on the existing context and existing availability of services and general mix of uses. Further, it should also be noted that Neighborhood Model District zoning should ideally contain a mix of residential and non- residential uses. If commercial uses did not exist adjacent to the subject property, the applicant's proposal for (28,000 sq. ft of commercial with 109 dwelling units) would be an excellent response to the Neighborhood Model. The Planning Commission requested that the applicant reduce the square footage of retail to 14,400 sq. ft. because of the existing commercial uses in the area. While the applicant is providing a maximum of 28,000 sq. ft. of non-residential uses, which includes office uses with the maximum 14,400 sq. ft. of retail uses, this commitment is not consistent or clearly depicted in the code of development and plan. Nearby neighborhood service areas include a mix of office and retail/service uses at Four Seasons, which is less than a mile away. The U.S. Route 29 corridor, also less than a mile away, contains community and regional service -scaled commercial development. Given the availability of office and retail/service uses adjacent to the site and in the immediate area, it may be that the applicant's proposal is in excess of what the neighborhood needs based on its designation. 5 Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 Principles of the Neighborhood Model -- Conformity with the Neighborhood Model is assessed below: Pedestrian Sidewalks are provided along Rio Road and Berkmar Drive, which will Orientation provide convenient access from the Oakleigh development to other nearby commercial uses, and public transportation. Within the Oakleigh development sidewalks and pathways are shown through out the development making this a pedestrian friendly development. However, during the worksession, the Planning Commission said that the applicant should attempt to provide a pedestrian connection to Berkeley. The applicant did not provide information confirming a meeting took place with the residents of Berkeley. This principle is not met. Neighborhood The streets in Oakleigh are primarily designed as travelways. Slow traffic Friendly Streets speeds, low traffic volumes, and landscaped roadways with sidewalks will and Paths help to make the streets and paths neighborhood friendly. This principle is met. Interconnected Interconnection is shown on the plan into the Berkmar Crossing Streets and development. This interconnection will help facilitate the transportation Transportation network related to Oakleigh Farm because there is a traffic signal at one of Networks the Berkmar Crossing accesses and Rio Road. The access from Rio Road to the Oakleigh Farm development is not proposed to be signalized. Easements or agreements allowing this interconnection will need to be provided prior to the rezoning. With provision of an easement or agreement this principle is met. Parks and Open There will be a park located in the center of the development where many Space of the older large trees will be preserved. Benches, paths and gardens will help facilitate this space into a park like environment. Additional amenities to the site will be a tot lot for children. This principle is met. Neighborhood The park area and commercial space within the Oakleigh development Centers may serve as centers to area residents. This principle is met. Buildings and The correct height of the proposed buildings is not known due to Spaces of Human discrepancies in the visionary statement and the Code of Development Scale related to building heights. There is not enough information to determine if this principle is met. Relegated Parking Although some of the parking in block two will be provided underneath the residential structures and in garages, some of this parking will also be provided to the front and side of buildings. Parking is also shown in Block one in front of Building B. The applicant has taken out some of the parking spaces in front of Building B at the request of the ARB, which now satisfies the ARB. Staff believes that parking would be better relegated if Building B were adjacent to Rio Rd. This principle is met in part. Mixture of Uses This development proposes commercial uses in the two buildings located in block one with residential uses located above this commercial space and residential uses located in block 2. This principle is met. Mixture of Housing The applicant proposes to provide townhouses, apartments, condominiums Types and and single-family detached cottages. A proffer is also provided that Affordability provides cash to the County in the amount based on the County's affordable housing policy. This principle is met. Redevelopment Oakleigh Farm is an example of an infill development. Site Planning that The applicant is making a large effort to preserve many of the existing Respects Terrain mature trees on the site and do as little grading as possible. This principle is met. Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 Clear Boundaries This development is located in the development area. This principle is not with the Rural applicable. Areas STAFF COMMENT Relationship between the application and the purpose and intent of the requested zoning district: The purpose and intent of the Neighborhood Model District (NMD) is to establish a planned development district in which traditional neighborhood development, as established in the County's Neighborhood Model, will occur. The NMD provides for compact, mixed-use developments with an urban scale, massing, density and an infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development areas identified in the comprehensive plan. The existing Residential (R-6) zoning district provides for compact, medium -density residential development; permits a variety of housing types; and provides incentives for clustering of development and provision of locational, environmental and developmental amenities. Staff believes that the proposal meets the intent of the Neighborhood Model District (NMD). Public need and justification for the change: The County's Comprehensive Plan supports development in the designated development area that is consistent with use, density, and form recommended in the Plan. Oakleigh Farm uses and form are viewed as being generally in conformity with the Comprehensive Plan. Impact on Environmental, Cultural, and Historic Resources: None of the environmental features is shown on the County's Open Space Plan, although the trees on the site are considered by many to be important resources. To respond, the applicant has provided a proffer for tree preservation as well as sections within the Code of Development regarding tree preservation efforts. Regarding historical resources, the only resources identified on the site in the Open Space Plan is the Nuttycombe farmhouse which dates to 1897. Prior to the applicant purchasing this property, a demolition permit was approved and the previous owner demolished that historic resource. Anticipated impact on public facilities and services: Streets: Although this project will increase traffic to an already high volume traffic road and area, as shown in the traffic study the relatively small to medium size of this project will not add any more impacts to this already high impacted area. (See Attachment E) Water and Sewer: Despite follow-up requests to the Albemarle County Service Authority, the only information staff has been given regarding this property from the Albemarle County Service Authority is provided in Attachment I. This attachment relates to a by -right proposal (Oakleigh Townhomes) located on the same tax map and parcel as the Oakleigh Farms proposal. This attachment is dated June 29, 2005. (See Attachment 1) Schools: Children from this development would attend Agnor-Hurt Elementary School, Burley Middle School and Albemarle High School. This development is expected to generate approximately 13.7 elementary school pupils, 7.23 middle school pupils, and 6.2 high school pupils. Fire, Rescue, Police: The Seminole Trail fire - rescue station serves this site. Albemarle County 5th Street Office Building contains the County's Police Department, although the police patrol all areas of the 7 Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 County. Current policy of police services recommends an average response time of 10 minutes for all Development Areas. No impact to these facilities is expected. Stormwater Management: The applicant proposes managing the entire volume of storm water from this development through underground detention and storm water management ponds. In general, this approach is acceptable in the County's urban areas. The general development plan indicates the applicant will address storm water quality and quantity through the system proposed. Engineering has no objection with the management concepts proposed. Anticipated impact on nearby and surrounding properties: The residential and commercial aspects of this project are very much in keeping with the existing surrounding properties, which are also comprised of residential and commercial uses. However, this property is primarily wooded, which adds a particular characteristic and level of privacy for the adjacent properties. As previously mentioned in this report, during the Planning Commission work session, the Commission discussed the provision of a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall. Most of the Commissioners agreed with staff that a parking—driveway setback of 10 feet and a continuous screening buffer would allow for screening in the future should the existing wooded areas on the Heritage Hall property be eliminated. The Commission asked the applicant to discuss this issue with Heritage Hall. The applicant has not indicated if this discussion has occurred. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD COMMENT The proposed Oakleigh Farm development falls within Rio Road Entrance Corridor, therefore, this project was reviewed by the ARB on September 17, 2007. (See Attachments F and G) In summary: The ARB suggested revised proffer language in order to address replacement/compensation for existing mature trees in the event that they die. The ARB felt revisions should be made to the code of development regarding landscaping along the eastern property line, east of Buildings B and D. At the ARB meeting the ARB requested the Architectural Standards required for the code of development be submitted for their review. The applicant has since revised the code of development to include this information; however, the ARB has not reviewed this information as yet. CODE OF DEVELOPMENT There are many technical changes needed to the code of development; however, they are things that do not require Planning Commission involvement and staff believes the applicant can address them before the Board of Supervisors hearing. Staff believes the following substantive issues need resolution before all changes to the Code can be made. Whether a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall should be provided. Whether a pedestrian connection to Berkeley should be made. Confirmation that the applicant will have only 14,400 sq. ft. devoted to retail since it is not clearly stated within the code of development and consistent with the plan. An easement or agreement will need to be submitted prior to the rezoning that allows the interconnection to occur between Oakleigh Farm and Berkmar Crossing. g Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 PROFFERS Proffer 1. Affordable Housing: The applicant will contribute cash in the amount of $19,100 for each affordable unit to the County. Sixteen units or a cash equivalent should be provided for 16.35 units. The total cash will be provided for 15% affordable housing units and should reflect the portion of an affordable unit. Also the applicant has proposed 16 payments over the course of the project. Staff believes that having the cash provided in four payments would be preferable. Proffer 2. Cash for Capital Improvements Program: The applicant proposes a cash contribution to the County in the amount of $3,204.59 for each dwelling unit for the mitigation of impacts from the project for schools, libraries, fire, rescue, parks, transportation or any other public use serving Neighborhood One. Staff believes that, to mitigate impacts, this amount should reflect the County policy of: 17,500 per single family detached (sfd) unit 11,900 per townhouse/condominium 12,400 per multi-family/apartment. Based on 2 single family detached units, 91 single family attached/townhouse units, and 16 multi -family units, the total expected amount would be $1,316,300. The total amount provided in the proffers is $349,300.00 The applicant disagrees and believes that the Board of Supervisors intended that credit should be given for 52 units that could be built by -right,. The applicant also believes that credit should be given for preservation of some of the trees on the site. Staff does not believe that the Board intended for credit to be given in either of these two circumstances. If cash proffers are provided, the total that addresses the impacts of this project on public facilities based on County policy is $1,316,300. Proffer 3. Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers: The amount of each cash contribution required shall be adjusted annually until paid. This is based on the Consumer Price Index. This language will be revised to be consistent with other similar proffers to the County. Proffer 4. Tree Preservation: The applicant proposes in the Code of Development a tree protection plan for thirty nine (39) trees within Oakleigh Farm. ARB Staff has suggested some additional language regarding this proffer. (See Attachment G) Proffer 5. Limitation on Retail use of Commercial Space: This proffer limits the non-residential space within the project to Buildings A and B on the Application Plan and limits the square footage of non-residential space for retail uses. The Code and Plan need to be consistent with each other and the proffer. Proffer 6. Emergency Accessway: The applicant shall design and construct an emergency accessway into the project in the northwest corner for emergency use only. At this time, staff is unclear whether this commitment is necessary as a proffer but will advise at the Planning Commission meeting. Proffer 7. Pedestrian Easement: This proffer directs the Homeowner's Association to grant a pedestrian easement over all walkways, which directly connect with property outside of Oakleigh Farm. In addition to these comments, the proffers are in need of technical and language revisions. See Attachment H) 9 Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 WAIVERS Staff does not have the necessary information regarding the parking calculations in order to determine a recommendation for the parking waiver request. Therefore, the parking waiver request cannot be recommended for approval until the parking calculations are corrected in the Code of Development. SUMMARY Staff has identified the following factors, which are favorable to this rezoning request: 1. The proposal meets most of the principles of the Neighborhood Model. 2. The applicant is proposing to preserve 39 of the existing mature trees. The following lists substantive and technical issues, some of which regard the proffers that are still outstanding and unfavorable to this rezoning request: 1. Impacts on public facilities are not appropriately offset through proffers meeting the County's cash proffer policy or the provision of public improvements. 2. Timing of payment for affordable units needs to be better addressed. 3. The provision of a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall needs to be addressed. 4. The pedestrian connection to Berkeley needs to be addressed. 5. The limitation of square footage for retail vs. office use needs to be clearly stated in the Code of Development and be consistent with the plan and proffer. 6. An easement or agreement allowing the interconnection of adjacent property needs to be provided. 7. The proffers need technical revisions. 8. The Code of Development needs technical revisions. 9. ARB comments need to be addressed. RECOMMENDATION Without resolution of the aforementioned outstanding issues, staff cannot recommend approval. Should the Planning Commission wish to recommend approval of this proposal to the Board inclusive of proffers, code of development, and the general development plan, staff recommends that this recommendation be based on resolution of the nine (9) outstanding issues listed above before the Board acts on this rezoning. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A — Tax Map ATTACHMENT B — Location Map ATTACHMENT C — Code of Development ATTACHMENT D — Planning Commission Final Action Memo, dated June 19, 2007 ATTACHMENT E — Electronic Mail from Joel Denunzio-VDOT, dated October 23, 2007 ATTACHMENT F — Letter to Mr. Edwards from Margaret Maliszewski, dated October 8, 2007 ATTACHMENT G — Memo from Margaret Maliszewski, dated October 17, 2007 ATTACHMENT H - Proffers, dated September 4, 2007 ATTACHMENT I — Memo from Gary Whelan, dated June 29, 2005 10 Oakleigh Farm PC Public Hearing 10/30/07 Albemarle County Planning Commission October 30, 2007 The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a work session, meeting and a public hearing on Tuesday, October 30, 2007, at 4:00 p.m., at the County Office Building, Lane Auditorium, Second Floor, 401 McIntire Road, Charlottesville, Virginia. _ Members attending were Calvin Morris, Vice -Chairman; Marcia Joseph, Chairman; Duane Zobrist, Bill Edgerton; Jon Cannon; Bill Edgerton and Pete Craddock. Bill Edgerton arrived at 4:10 p.m. Absent were Eric Strucko and Julia Monteith, A1CP, Senior Land Use Planner for the University of Virginia. Other officials present were Rebecca Ragsdale, Senior Planner; David Benish, Chief of Planning; Wayne Cilimberg, Director of Planning; Amelia McCulley, Director of Current Development & Zoning; Bill Fritz, Chief of Current Development and Greg Kamptner, Deputy County Attorney. Call to Order and Establish Quorum: Ms. Joseph called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. and established a quorum. Work Session. Crozet Downtown Zoning A review and discussion of the Crozet Downtown Zoning project, with a focused discussion on a recommendation for a single Downtown Crozet Zoning District and the zoning regulations to be established for that district, including building setbacks, building height, land uses, the requirement for mixed use, parking requirements, sidewalks, landscaping, buffer/screening requirements. (Rebecca Ragsdale) In summary, the Planning Commission held the third work session on Crozet Downtown Zoning. The primary purpose of the work session was to focus on the actual zoning regulations. The slide show presented by staff reviewed the following zoning requirements: building and parking setbacks, building height, parking, land uses, the requirement for mixed use, sidewalks, landscaping and bufferlscreening requirements. The Commission discussed the zoning requirements, made comments and provided feedback and answered the questions posed by staff. Public comment was taken. No formal action was taken. An additional work session will be scheduled in the future to discuss implementation and a possible comprehensive zoning map amendment initiated by the County The Planning Commission made the following comments: The proposal for shared parking through use of trading agreements should be modified. The goal is to make shared parking easier to achieve; however, if an owner loses parking spaces as a result of a change in an agreement, both the owner and the County need to be protected. It was agreed, however, that the viability of the businesses and mixed use over time will rely heavily on the adequacy of parking. Since the proposed regulations require fewer spaces than under current ordinances, the Commission asked staff to address any potential problems due to the lack of parking. for the downtown area. The Planning Commission suggested that the minimum number of parking spaces for 2-bedroom residential uses should be 2.0 instead of 2.5 and that staff should look at the minimum number of spaces for other uses to see if they can be further reduced. Regarding the land uses, the main goal is to allow flexibility to achieve the mixed use. The proposed regulations from the consultant would require that each building have a mixture of uses. Members of the public were concerned that requiring all buildings to have mixed use would be too onerous. Planning Commissioners were concerned that commercial and residential uses might not be achieved ir, the downtown without some requirements. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 30, 2007 Attachment I FINAL ACTION MEMO LOCATION: Tax Map 56, Parcels 97A, 97A1, and 97 (only a .833 acre southwest portion of the property as shown on the General Development Plan) along Radford Lane near its intersection with Rockfish Gap Turnpike (Rt. 250 W) MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall (Rebecca Ragsdale) Ms. Long, representative for the applicant Weatherhill Development, said that statt summed up all of the issues very well. It was essentially a technical amendment to the proffers to provide additional flexibility for the affordable housing to be for rent units in addition to for sale units and also to expand the types of units that could be provided as affordable units. Ms. Joseph asked that they expand the affordable housing proffer so that it includes the option to offer cash in the event that the County prefers cash to a housing unit at the time of site plan approval because a potential buyer has not been found. Ms. Long replied in the affirmative. Action on ZMA-2007-00014: Motion: Mr. Strucko moved, Mr. Morris seconded, for approval of ZMA-2007-00014, Liberty Hall Amendment, as amended, to include the additional proffer language offered by Ms. Long. The motion passed by a vote of 7:0. Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2007-00014, Liberty Hall Amendment will go before the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for approval on December 12, 2007. ZMA-2007-00004 Oakleinh Farm (Sinn # 62) PROPOSAL: Rezone 8.82 acres from R-6 zoning district which allows residential uses and 6 units/acre to NMD - Neighborhood Model zoning district which allows residential mixed with commercial, service and industrial uses and 3 - 34 units/acre. Proposed number of units is 109 for a density of 12.3 units/acre. PROFFERS: Yes EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE/DENSITY: Urban Density Residential - residential 6.01-34 units/acre) and supporting uses such as religious institutions, schools, commercial, office and service uses. Neighborhood 1 ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 547 Rio Road West (Route 631) directly across the street from Woodburn Road (Route 659) TAX MAP/PARCEL: TM: 45/P: 26A MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: Rio (Claudette Grant) Motion: Mr. Craddock moved, Mr. Zobrist seconded, for denial of ZMA-2007-00004, Oakleigh Farm, as recommended by staff for the reasons stated in the staff report as unfavorable conditions. Discussion: Staff noted to the Commission that the applicant had agreed to address the following items that had been identified in the staff report: 1. Timing of payment for affordable units. 2. Provision of an easement to the adjoining property. 3. Making the proffers and Code of Development consistent with regards to limitations on the amount of retail square footage that would be available in the development (14,400 square feet) 4. Correcting wording problems in the proffers. 5. Correcting the Code of Development as requested by staff. ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007 5 FINAL ACTION MEMO The Commission agreed that the applicant had appropriately addressed the issues related to pedestrian access to Berkeley by contacting the adjoining owners. Regarding the recommendation for denial, Mr. Cilimberg asked if it was based on the unfavorable factors identified by staff that had not been committed to by the applicant. There were some things that the applicant said at tonight's meeting that they would address. In addition, he asked if the Commission's recommendation was also based on the lack of a provision of affordable units physically located in the project. Mr. Zobrist asked that Mr. Strucko's concern be added about the fact that there is no policy in place for protecting the rural areas as opposed to the development areas. He does not want to overload the development areas until there is a current policy to protect the rural areas. Mr. Strucko agreed, but questioned if that was part of the motion or the sediment of the other Commissioners. Mr. Cannon noted that he felt the same way, but it was not part of his vote on this. The Commission agreed with Mr. Cilimberg's summary. The motion for denial passed by a vote of 7:0. Ms. Joseph stated that ZMA-2007-0004, Oakleigh Farm will go before the Board of Supervisors with a recommendation for denial on December 12, 2007. The recommendation for denial was based on the following reasons: 1. Impacts on public facilities are not appropriately offset through proffers meeting the County's cash proffer policy or the provision of public improvements. 2. The provision of a buffer along the common property line with Heritage Hall had not been provided 3. The lack of affordable units to be physically located in the project. The Planning Commission took a 10 minute break at 7:26 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:37 p.m. Work Sessions: ZMA-2007-00016 Watkins 260 Rezoning PROPOSAL: Rezone 3.0 acres from R1 - Residential (1 unittacre) to HC Highway Commercial which allows commercial and service uses; and residential use by special use permit (15 units/ acre) for a Landscape Contracting business PROFFERS: No EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USEIDENSITY: Community of Crozet; CT-3 Urban Edge: single family residential (net 3.5-6.5 units/acre) supporting uses such as religious institutions and schools and other small-scale non-residential uses ENTRANCE CORRIDOR: Yes LOCATION: 5168 Rockfish Gap Turnpike/Route 250 West, east of Radford Lane & adjacent to Clover Lawn TAX MAP/PARCEL: Tax Map 56, Parcels 107C & 98D MAGISTERIAL DISTRICT: White Hall (Rebecca Ragsdale) In summary, a work session on ZMA-2007-00016, Watkins 250 Rezoning was held by the Planning Commission. In a power point presentation, staff summarized and provided an overview of the ALBEMARLE COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION — OCTOBER 30, 2007 6 FINAL ACTION MEMO Oakleigh Project Narrative June 30, 2016 PROJECT PROPOSAL The Owner of the Oakleigh property proposes to amend the previously approved rezoning of the Oakleigh property, which was rezoned in 2008 from R-6 Residential to Neighborhood Model Development. The property is located within the County's designated development area, specifically the Places29 area. The primary purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the Application Plan to permit a portion of the property to be developed for an Assisted Living Facility. There is a significant public need for additional Assisted Living Facilities in Charlottesville, and the need will continue to increase as our population continues to age, and our community continues to be an attractive destination for retirees. Thus, this proposed amendment will significantly address this public need. The Owner is also proposing other modifications to the Application Plan and Code of Development to provide for more flexibility for the property to develop for a variety of uses, and to simplify the Code of Development to bring it in line with current standards for such Codes. The Project will continue to be a mixed use community with a mixture of residential and non- residential uses. The front portion of the property is essentially unchanged, and still proposes two buildings along Rio Road West with two floors of retail or office, and then residential units above. The Application Plan previously showed only residential uses in the back portion of the property, but is now proposed to be amended to permit that area to be used for an Assisted Living Facility, or otherwise to still be residential uses. The Code of Development revisions would not permit more dwelling units within the Project than were permitted by ZMA 2007- 00004. And if the Assisted Living Facility is developed, the number of residential units will be significantly reduced over what was permitted by ZMA 2007-00004. The Owner is also proposing to amend the approved proffers to bring the cash proffer amounts into compliance with state law, and to clarify that the cash proffers and affordable housing requirements will apply when the number of dwelling units within the project exceeds the number that could have been built under the prior R-6 Residential zoning that was in effect prior to 2008. The proposed amendment satisfies the purposes and intent of the Neighborhood Model District in that the property is currently zoned NMD, and that designation is not proposed to be changed. The proposal will continue to be consistent with all applicable principles of the Neighborhood Model (see more detail below), and continues to provide for a compact, mixed-use development with an urban scale, massing, density, and infrastructure configuration that integrates diversified uses within close proximity to each other within the development area identified in the comprehensive plan. In addition,the proposed uses in the Code, as well as the character, form and density of the proposed development are derived from the comprehensive plan. Finally, the NMD regulations state that the "regulations are intended to provide an applicant with maximum flexibility in creating and implementing the [Application Plan] and the code of development." This proposed amendment attempts to provide that level of maximum flexibility in the Application Plan and Code. CONSISTENCY WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed rezoning is consistent with the property's designation on the Land Use Plan of the County's Comprehensive Plan for urban density residential,which envisions densities between 6.01-34 dwelling units per acre. Assisted Living Facilities are considered an institutional use in the Places29 Master Plan and are recommended as a secondary use under the Urban Density Residential designation. The maximum number of residential units that would be located within the property will be less than 34 DUA. Although Table LU2 of the Places 29 Master Plan suggests that single buildings should be limited to 20,000 square feet, this limitation does not reflect the realities of the economics of operating Assisted Living Facilities under current federal regulations. Such a limit would require the building to have a smaller footprint and more stories than is optimal. With federal requirements to have nurses and aids stationed on each floor of a facility, a building with a small footprint becomes difficult (if not impossible)to staff efficiently. This situation is a current challenge at the Mountainside Senior Living facility in Crozet, where the repurposed building is less efficient for the delivery of health care and Assisted living than is optimal, given the relatively small number of beds per floor, and thus creates significant financial challenges for the facility. If the proposed Assisted Living Facility at Oakleigh(or other places in Albemarle County) were similarly so limited, it would be nearly impossible to provide service efficiently, new facilities would not be built, and the significant public need for such facilities would not be met. CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD MODEL 1. Pedestrian Orientation. Sidewalks are provided along Rio Road and Berkmar Drive, which will provide convenient access from the Oakleigh development to other nearby commercial uses, and public transportation. Within the Oakleigh development sidewalks and pathways are shown throughout the development making this a pedestrian friendly development. 2. Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths. The streets in Oakleigh are primarily designed as travelways. Slow traffic speeds, low traffic volumes, and landscaped roadways with sidewalks will help to make the streets and paths neighborhood friendly. 3. Interconnected Streets and Transportation Networks. Interconnection is shown on the plan into the Berkmar Crossing development. This interconnection will help facilitate the transportation network related to Oakleigh because there is a traffic signal at one of the Berkmar Crossing accesses and Rio Road. The access from Rio Road to the Oakleigh development is not proposed to be signalized. 4. Parks and Open Space. There will be a pocket park located in the development. This will serve as a memorial garden and buffer between the front and rear uses. In addition, • several large mature trees will be preserved. Benches, paths and landscaping will help facilitate this space into a park like environment. A tot lot is not envisioned at this time to be incorporated into the park given the small number of residential units proposed. 5. Neighborhood Centers. The commercial space within the Oakleigh development may serve as a center to area residents and the surrounding area. 6. Buildings and Spaces of Human Scale. Limitations are placed on building sizes, heights and setbacks in Block I. 7. Relegated Parking. In Block I, parking is shown in front of Building B. Working with the ARB, parking spaces were removed and now satisfies their request. Additional parking has been relegated behind and off to the side of the two commercial buildings along West Rio Road. The remaining parking within Oakleigh has been minimized and buffered throughout the site using garages, topography and introducing landscaping to help minimize any parking impacts from the Entrance Corridor. 8. Mixture of Uses and Types. This development proposes commercial uses in the two buildings located in Blocks I, II and III. Residential uses are located above and behind this commercial space in Block IV. In Block V, assisted living is proposed. 9. Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability. The applicant proposes to provide townhouses, assisted living, and either a type of apartment or condominiums/lofts above the commercial buildings in Block I. In addition a cash proffer is also provided to the County in the amount based on the County' s affordable housing policy. 10. Redevelopment. Oakleigh is an example of an infill development. 11. Site Planning that Respects Terrain. The applicant is making a large effort to preserve as many of the existing mature trees on the site and do as little grading as possible within their vicinity. 12. Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas. This development is located in the development area. This principle is not applicable. IMPACTS ON PUBLIC FACILITIES & PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE The proposed amendment to the Oakleigh property creates a considerable public benefit by providing the opportunity for an Assisted Living Facility to be developed at the property. A company with several existing facilities is very interested in locating its facility at Oakleigh, but the current Code of Development and Application Plan will not permit such a use. If the property is developed with such a use, the impact on public infrastructure and public facilities would be smaller than it would under the current Application Plan and Code, which contemplates more residential uses. With fewer residential units, the impact on schools, roads, parks and libraries will significantly decrease. Residents of Assisted Living Facilities rarely have cars, and staffing levels are fairly modest and thus generate relatively few employee trips. Visitors do come to Assisted Living facilities, but rarely during peak hours. IMPACTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES The proposed amendment to the Oakleigh Application Plan and Code of Development works to preserve as many of the existing trees as possible while also providing the opportunity to locate an Assisted Living Facility at the property. While some of the trees that previously would have been preserved based on the existing approved Application Plan will need to be removed to accommodate the Assisted Living Facility, a number of significant trees will be retained and protected by the proposed amendment. In addition,the Owner proposes to maintain a structure to bond the remaining trees to increase the likelihood that they will be protected in the future. PROPOSED PROFFERS TO ADDRESS IMPACTS A draft proffer amendment statement is included with this submittal, which addresses Affordable Housing, Cash proffers, Tree Preservation, and the right of the public to access the roads that are proposed to be private roads. 31508638_2 docx Attachment C OAKLEIGH RIO DISTRICT, ALBEMARLE COUNTY, VIRGINIA REZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION PLAN PREPARED BY: ALAN G FRANKLIN,P.E.LLC Civil and Site Planning Engineering 427 Cranberry Lane,Crozet,VA 22932 telel 434.531 5544 el alan@alanfranklinpe.com Edwards designStudio,PLLC Landscape Architecture and Site Planning 4936 Old Boonsboro Road Lynchburg,VA 24503 telel 434.531.7507 el steve@edwardsdesIgnstudlo.com www.edwardsdeslgnstudio.com 30 JUNE 2016 28 NOVEMBER 2016(REV) SHEET INDEX SHEET 1 COVER SHEET SHEET 2 PARCEL OVERVIEW&REGIONAL CONTEXT SHEET 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN SHEET 4 BLOCK PLAN SHEET 5 CODE OF DEVELOPMENT SHEET 6A APPLICATION PLAN:SCENARIO'A' SHEET 6B APPLICATION PLAN.SCENARIO'B' VICINITY MAP I Scale:NTS PROPERTY DATA APPLICATION PLAN NOTES • rt'- " Owner/Developer: 1 This Application Plan proposes a change in land use from ' • Oakleigh Albemarle,LLC Neighborhood Model District(NMD)to Neighborhood Model District • "T'""• 690 Berkmar Circle I C'ville,VA 22901 (NMD)to allow a mixed use development of the site -^"^ '"""°"^ 2. This Site Lies within the South Fork Rivanna Legal Description: 3 Refer to the Code of Development located In this set on Sheet 5 TM 45 Parcel 26A(8.822 Acres) SITE 547 West Rio Road BASE INFORMATION Source of Phylscal,Topographic and Boundary Survey Completed by Robert Lum,Dated 5/30/2003 • Additional Work completed by Thomas B Lincoln Land Surveyors,Dated 5/31/2007 and 11/15/2007 Datum:NAVD 83(State Plane) Benchmark:Top of Fire Hydrant.Elev=566.50 • Water Source:Albemarle County Service Authority-Jurisdictional Area Sewer Service:Albemarle County Service Authority-Jurisdictional Area Existing Zoning:Neighborhood Model District(NMD); ZMAIt 2007-04 with a Parking Waiver Entrance Corridor:Yes Comprehensive Plan:Urban Density Residential(6.01-34 DU/AC),Urban Image provided by GOOGLE Maps Mixed Use(in Centers)In Neighborhood 1(Places 29) Existing Approved Site Plan:SDP200800101 • Attachment C e936 Ok fianubwa ROW 1 Lynchbuq.VA 24N1J n •. u .,� Now or Former 1e1el l3e.dJ1.]40] Nw a Formerly b ebre@WwardedeJpnsW db.com �.IM GARDEN LLC • \ wwrw.edwardebYgnetudm.com D.B 2717 PG 746 ,�/ • Zoned:C1 Coop Men:U Density \ AWl G.FRANKl11,PF.LLC Use'Residential 11]CNe end Sh Pre be Enge/dm ., `. Ls CrenMry Lane.Gozet VA 22932 / • abled4.A1.1544 4°...."'...A \ .se • '.. a wngalan6.nlJnpe. • KEY • / t‘villee°°. ` 1 vp t t : .' `r •r ," � r. ` o •• i ml • II I ' I% v 7MP 45-26A l,l i E Now or Formerly O I OAKLEIGH ALBEMARLE.LLC LL Zoned'NMD Z Comp.Plan Urban Density a Q CDUse'Urben Mixed Use 8.822 AC Q Z ii jJ a I z W • w 0 • ° 11 Z• c6• TMP 4546 ill I Q 1� Now or Fonnedy Ur O C) . MEDICAL FACILITIES OF AMERICA D.B.3678 PG.655 , ? SI ZonedR6 I Z CZ Comp Plan:Urban Density Use Residential a - O � II, SO IZ 1 c a 14 EE I e Bb*A p ■ Lot UNt lA Mg D Info U U ey 3D Bldg C { 1 Block Al g 1 Lam. TMP 61M-12-IA1 llrT JJ-- -_r �__ -_�� - -- -- -- Zoned PDMC 10 Nock Block 6 Block 6 \ TMP 61MB1ck Al A2avu1A6 Comp.Plan.Community Service 6p Lot19 Lot 1 Lot 2 Zoned'Cl Use:ConmerciaFR e 5O TMP 6111-05-19 IMP 61M-06-1 TMP 61M-06-2 Coop Plan:Comma*Service See Chan Nvwa Formerly Now or Formerly Now or Formerly Uee:Commertle-Odlos WI WAM R.THOMAS OR RACHEL PREMIL OR RAM.CETIC RUTH PARSONS See Chan T.CASTILLO g D.B. PG.366 D.B 4160 PG.148 (r' D.B 2828 PG 593 Zoned:R2 Zoned'R2 d}i Zoned:R2 Comp Plan Nelghiatrod Density Camp plan CommadaF,,,, Block Fl Nook Fl Comp Plan.Neighborhood Density Use:Residential Use Resklen6el TMP 61Moned: 8hru 2F4 TMP 61M-13-1FI IMU F5 E$ Use:Residential Zoned:ClC Zoned Cl b Camp.Plan Community Service Comp.Plan Community Sen e Use Commercial-OBkn Use:Commercial-Officea See Chan See Chan i5 1.8 gg Parcel Overview 9i 11 11 - •aura rea -- IzE\ - $, �r" -School ��_ � — NS ' ' aV�e o \ g{ 1 - Nsy _ SITE ,_ . a Ns Woodburn Ridg4 y NS ! .�`S' , ', w.eaa.mR q. - 1 • - �� Seasons SITE��f._ - SCALE; 1 30 J'D ..... V NS - Agrlor-Hurt I REVISIONS 30June 2016�`r .l �'' - l / 2.iL2610.cowl,COMMENis P y _ -_ NS , . iceAgnor-Hurt' ICOWRY / NS School • O 'am'- ,� �� `_ rc••, ,e ,-� r 1 r -_p. r N� JeCenter SHEET• 'illr 2 - Shopping Cert.. Parcel Overview& ili Regional Context Map:Places 29 Future Land Use-South I Not to Scale Regional Context ow OF 7ce ■ G VICINITY MAP ADJACENT OWNERS LEGEND: i ,, \' ' / _ Attachment {Panel Owner a• M. CHR.CHERRY 611411-Mt May s4lry6 Vow. Y.].n M.HEMLOCK \ {1I-W ROY LLC y4ya16 LOC.LOCU6T / , \ 4 ` / � Lynchburg.VA21503 e4L-12.W Die ER/LC a.LLCy 1® RO.RED OAK YF /1< etY-12-]M OE111SP LLC 7036TRM.RED MAPLE ' ta1H Ix.SJ1.T50] 6 VP.VeiGINIA7 / \ ` / / •I•Mea@adward•ddgpNdM.e.mT411S9 ;.r 61M-11N6 SLaYww r. /L•RMIaRSetl eRltp Y .`,Va! ". etY-11Ye Len.CEI1NEP LlL T1e•211 WO.WALNUT � G0� ww•a'a �4_t` aa�a"��. :� etY-till L.w'vLSP�la Uar yl.xlg • nE OAK i a / `\ „je • ALAN G.FRANKLN,P.C.LLC •, ,, r! � ♦ FF,_::., M-tYi2 11 L.J v.YP.ha C.W. Sn18 k C.and site Nennl )I t �Z� \ IWnaehlOw 28Rie SURVEY PREPARED BY' / �`r _ �1 \ l` / C2�CranSerry Lam Cog/el Engnwngig T ^0 CAe sp_vLro5.211 LLM'S LAND SURVEYS. /P I //II1� p i // • - • _� � .• - 1 RaaMl.A aaar•.CYelrep2! P.O.BOR 1x PALAIYRA,VA 2211B301x / �' �\ / NMI 4x.S3t35. / !1/' 9�� iF AM.Y ulna here ffi.161 (/31).99391 1 � � `� s u44 Patlr2tl4321 Q el+ �ManhanAenpcem112F] o,.a..H ar n.ya.D mr. nlaet TPEES SURVEYED ey � / r� < \14 / / KEY �. �• / - I ; `\ 4^ .'• eleIFS 1 OEYPEP lu 1TmM �THOMAS a LIN LIAND SURVEYOR INC. / ` / N. i g •• .. •A N9 CIWRLOTTESVILLE.VA 12801 --.. .--/-:........„. —/ // V co.:3 1 q / / I ./: \� ` 1 THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN FLOOD ZONE LAS SHOWN (131)9741117 / / P. yr/ .; ON TINE FlRM MAP PANEL NO:Si000B023DB. / / I \ �r � ,— \ �Q y/, ` 2 THIS PROPERTY ODES NOT HAVE ANY CRITICAL SLOPES. '' // // /•/ TAP 4S-26A� \ �D \ a„, .1 `��+ ~ tt'a��//�% ' 3.DATUM.STATE PLANE COORDINATE 1963 //', '/' .,�, NOW Or FORIIB1 \ \/V \ ` cm,, BENCHMARK TOP OF FHA ELEV 586.'A / - .aam 4 I Er GARDEN,LLC v \ \ \ \ �` TREE INVENTORY // ' DB 2717PG 746 \//? \ \� I ug� wa Zoned C1 s,, .. My « Gem,-_ n.Med �^ / J , /C/pnP Plan Urban Density \ ) \ \ + 68g TO y \ • w llil. 8111 gill // // _. / -- , !1 Use.Commercial / ^J \ \` CVILL�HEAL �y �\ 41111,411t; • \ r`‘, LS:;:: • \ :...................:...a';,••;.•• \ /�. / / // I// �• \ `% \\ • B ' 1 -II! <2 TO • I -2 `` 1 D a OG 1 S N. -- 7 7 7-10- •.1' "A. -4/ 0\ \\\1\\\ .... A t 4) \ z IN -,O+ �/ / / // �,,— / / • �5 l \ 1 /\ / I V O m „c ••a OR // // // ��/ // / ` I I ) / \/ •I I ^" ) \ �� \� .� , .- a� / / // // / '� I / / / / ♦ E Yap L i :a ow 2P x01' — ._ !! H ID Z ): \ , , , , , , , , i' / \ ;_,. ,__ . 1 , '-'-' ""•' ° © // // // // i14A / �► �\ I / / / / /EE / h \ i z - m11 r Rie a _ i / / / / / / \ / / / / /EASEMEIr / • w 03 i ..'cr x . R / t // / / // // 17 ra, �\ \ I I I l / / l l I\ .. \ < O E 1a cc VA "�®� / / I / / 074, , /4 • / r1 I I 1 TM 46.26A/ / // / / ` '�� Ois /f 1 / / / / .e \ I I I Now Forme I \ t'O■ RN[RD' °x JN a / 0 // / // / •19 //r �. _y� v ..-\ \ 4 . 1 I I OAI0LEIGH,ILLBEMPRLE,Lik / / / / / \/ O.. 9'I 85B I F / I I I D.B. 6 PG1314 / / / / / Y‘..I `�L M1� x R A� / // / / / �� // I Z ed•7�}D / / / , \ � dx / / / / / // ( I I �omp P1'an Urban Density / / / / / A -1v titr_ //, // // // / / \\ I II I Use 46eizgedu( // / / // // // \ ^ '�A e i M " a R -_ 1., �1 // / I/ /// /// /— —\ II I I I I i / j/ / / I \ 1g . • . R / • // \ I I OPEN P IRE I I I I I / I 1 \MA // I / �� "Br � I III + H >m b l �� / I I '' // \ / I I I I I I I 1 I I I / // I / / �' � / 32 ) I I / I I I I I I I II \ ;: Io l / / lII1I I I II t, 1r x , , ®®■Illiu, h I / / .ea. I ( r :5 / // / / I , / I 1 , I I I 'r$ L. , 11 8 ©OB ,• III � 4 / / I l \" r— _ / / . / / I I I I I 1 I 1 / /ii_it .. �- I. I III I / / \ \ �/ /' // / ? / / I / / / I I I / �� 11tI��I I I I / / / 1 \ \ //—' // / / l / / / / I I I I I I / II ■ is ii w/ // 1 \ \ \ —/ / / / / „ / / / / I / 346.49'1/6•W// -- I/ 4 1 _ 11 // \ \ \ // // _- _ _:i�iecirric�sie�iiii• � / / „ "^ 1;f Now or Fomlelty - -` --_ / // // $ yr //////w - •_,.a-----_„ss- = �./y --_� y�, 1 e MEDICAL FACILITIES OF f1MIERICA -- - �" / / S/ / /// 1..� \ I SCALE: 1"=30' DB 3678 PG 65 \ �� /� ///// r I L / Vit I \ .. I ISSUED 30 June 20167; L..,, tined R6 \ \ ,.ea..._ e. j / (ID//T1///// ' "tr .tI a.1:- MAR CROSS \ a ') REVISIONS Comp PlaReWban Density \ N \ _. N. _ Use Reside - \ N - N Aft / / :•4:�r / ///// 1 / --�61ih„ / :rl , 2. ox.16.cooNtt,,,,a ENr"" g \ I` _ _ _ _ _ //� .—. -r. 4\OI 1 I rrr' .., 3.110016.CWNTY COMMENTS = _——-............ \C•72 et I/ 6 MleINOVr.1< ♦ \ i^ j _ Block 6 Lot 1 \ / -- .1°-_-__--�- P 6 - ru 1A6 Block Al \ -• i ot 19h "9 \ TMP 61 -06-1 \Block$ /•/ //'.e-'---r- —--n�-- J / � C G CONDO M_ TAP 61 M-12-1 '_ 2 I I • ! • &^\ /' /, //� - - “- ., ASSO NS ET ALM BErt2KMAR CROSSING CON�OMINPJ N� / ^n I o _ 4/f/ AY to i r WILLIA • OFF:SOY-:CHEL PRf] I OR RANKA COTS - ` ` -: l/ /LL�/%:_'L4 �• '` Zon • ASSOCIATIONS,ET .� T/ N \ 5 IU SHEET: w �M1 No o ^'a a6d32' ■� •'^ hh p Plan Servll Zoned PDMC • / b .. r T.CA :'T� D�21 PG 36 ^ \ 1 ' Use / Comp Plan.Community Service E P e B 2829�. \ Zoned:R2 R�p..�-�a•.TSONS N •m' -">L rc Zoned - • 1 Comp Plan Neighborhood Density / i e ." n.46, \ Bock Ft 1 TMP 61M-134 F1 thru Fit a ahart.... / Use Commercial-Office • r * I, z Plan Neigh.. Density Use Residential I road R2 J TMP 51M-13-2F7 fhru 2F4 , I2KMAR CROSSING CONDOMINI M•"»a, See Chan ad,-,y' / fiii b \ `��'• BERKMAR:ROBBING CONDOM 1 Si - n Use Reside Co p Plan mere.-Office ASSOCIATIONS,ET AL .,.^ _ J �. \ UseS9Idential ASSOCIATIONS,ET AL Zoned Ct •;1'I� 1h..1 J �41yZ. I NI Zoned Cl Comp plan Community Service M Al 1'`" r ..,h 4 \ N 3 I Comp Plan Community Service ,. t 1 ... .n.r, Existing to I 1 I I ` Use Commercial-Office Use Commercial Office ; ��• �� B ��"S" I 1see chart g.'.�. - •'hs '� Conditions Plan �rr ��� IF_ 11 11 I I , f� I See Chart .1.: 1 _ \ OF 7 a • Attachment C SEVILaSIENT SNACK MAMMARY , .BJB O d 6ponsbo o RoaE SIAS K ��1/�p// Lynchburg.VA 24503 �.OrIN RR iORIIe -MOM I FT 2507 E : : : ♦♦ / \ y► al.anSeantra M M cnm balk wED of ♦ A KEY. p�ce MOCI(N 0.15 MpED lief 0 M Ni . 1Er ♦♦/ \ � �,�' \ 1.rfiDLN �Y"ti I ./ ic NIEUSE 0 M OA 0 1MMO (- ..\ss, � B �(p� Tom' �r�.. SF ATM.IED IgIpA 0.f EIIiO MN M UN MA M1 Ill ♦� INTERNAL ROAD ROAD 0J0 MR MA NM NIT. MA ,III B I , NARK.ROW DONCATAMI 0@ M NA WA WA MA MA ) ; :� ' t ' \\ll] ` I \ , NA9RUY ill M q la SASS ))toff \\ t Nil , ,. METACTormassoNME IRRBAMECYMR ale THE5t.m lit AMOK: Raba to 0.Caved Deapere wile.l b Oe.M me•Peeled Wes \\ • ) M Massol ewe DrawDsW•mewwetef•bawl a le wee heatwee.Are wore rot near ha proceed Anne...,Par \ Node mey.comb.ad br.acebr.wNrYal eesera MKI..NE1rrbO.lA.IAbaNerna --_--_ -... __ ��\ J rw•mnR n..abaa.rsNPoem ■ � I L he Nine•a Olae grew WM.bn•e Dane ants W...se we.renew cream are nor naceaare geese was • M BEca v nor a.tFA..,M.atev Leona Seamy Cowl.weaved o wawa accordvrm probe reward peon a are Pewee Mpeaeon Pen W ti '--1 r��� r� DM 2007-0bM. 0 Weanun wear alA.a.aV-9Far.eel et.Nenae.Wpct a careen.wee M appea.reea.an.Wrh.Cave of D.s elks,.Arse wane ,, 1 ` ROAD'S' II ' 'f I o .. I � r-----1 dl ; �� .33 ACRES �,� �i o (PRIVATE ROW) / -a-ac - - a r c U .Y 07 ,,)„,._ ,. LAND UBE SUMMARY LAND USE BREAKDOWN rZ ( r BLOCK V �i _ • B _,- ■ Q_ USE ACREAGE % TOTAL USE 11CREAOE xoF TOTAL > 4.68 ACRES __ _=_1._..---. \mite a •��e01 STYE SRE 1/ ilj___Emin ~ „ OPEN SPACE 0 8% ROW 0 0% > _ �T COMMERCIAL/MIXED USE 7.01 7M% BUILDINGS 1.N 22% MIXED USE I. ILIZ !� RESIDENTIAL 096 11% PARKING 1 ROADS 5.00 S7%_ I V C ROAD DEDICATIONS 005 101E GREEN SPACE 1.83 21% RO/L D a/L• / • W TOTAL 0.02 1M% TOTAL O.i2 toot .50 ACRES - Q ii, (PRIVATE ROW) cp I I c9 .� _Ft' 11 Pllllfi._--, Z R 1 moos DATA J r I f O I Nv BLOCK oTTWO SOME* 0 !'�0�0 I �) / = % M IMS SPACES .. M_aa f BLOCK 1 PAYMENTS'RENTS' _ I 0 I 1 b CONBtom(13,Op Gp)a' M It I / ....��-+�-�� IPARTLEMS a e r.r r .i�. 1 i BLOCK I COSBERCAL(13I00 GSF)'.' M a .,.`� E BLOCK SI COMERCIAL(13AB3 GSF)" M 0 cif 'ROCK IV TOWMKS S(1 CARG5RME?• le 17 I - ) ft CLOCKV ASSISTEDLMK' 9S a re Btf I. I ( l / 1 b a TOTAL 11 art no _ yyypy¢ RESTIBCTgMLRE0A0.EYENTi ASSOCIATED MIN THE STANDARDS ABOVE: .a a ... 1 .M.�y I N._.a M M -ram \ cam _ _._ ' r ai 1 Guest spaces we NOT reared for mite waxen=rung i grouped together iie.Writing Yl dwfbfEi ' '0 `f � /�/�^�_�ti/-�/'��" -�..� v - �r IS 2.See commexal prkM=ainADOrs beige or the sheet details l� l "`� 3.Mated m le Ap ees.d e.POWe(ZM42W7-0N)a Pnbe Waiver was graNed for a retKEm ef84.IPae(41)WM_ f1I lkiI .. L t TM ppowocamP.aMMfdar.x } _ • ,. .. __ _._ I a!; 1M(8)Caning Kum ISM LyROre"A Shall be maned as resicmi onkr SS)( F b.eght(8)Wong spare t Guiding B•ehal be marked as resident my - m-a FLL baba b•Ml as aka• •, c.Sbewal s wA be reseed balsam Ee pedant;MI ad .il to 0Adrfg•O all Ere paling M •ni b DAM F as j��"7 I I 5 Dawn an Sheet 68 Kee.•apple�a PSI Samna B Merrr*nen sidewalks ea be regimet me o•sic --V I f-1 I 1 \ n�,0 approval team the edam b adjecbe b 3u Ming 13-are M aceacert tasking•C•as shown m Sheaf 6A feed. -Apploaten Plan ScenrioA' BLOCK III BLOCK II W. RIO ROAD a The site assert.sP i6)totenharnes wed ore(I I<a Peg. DEDICATION 5 The proposed assisted rrNrg breelg assumes ore handed Wanly b to(120)bedroom apartments Equvnl ore Mrncted t oat'-leo(132)beds I 1 spade per 3 bedsl A'dlrbvl apartments a'rdb beds are permuted provided doe m tarn um prangs .42 ACRES .V6 ACRES Deeded.Mal store]between id Me a w dmwkneed tol.an aeMme 5DBC spaces b c:omodate b er saR 1 i spaces age Ile COMMERCIAL MIXED USE 02 ACRES li (PUBLIC ROW) COMMERCIAL PARKING CALCULATIONS(per Buildings AS B, 1ggJ(J( FOOTPRINT 7,203 SF TRW GENERATION PARKING COM.ERCVL AREA 16600 are AVG. •A reduction from Ore listed requirements may be approved by the Albemarle County Zoning Mn&B PERSETER WALL _ 720 GSF AQI STREET ADJ.STREET ai ADJUSTED GAF 1300GSF WEEKENDAdministrator In addition to the previous reduction at the time of Final She Plan approval In 80%;NET TO 30SS1 10.9N NSF OMT8 CODE LAND DIE 0� TRIPSAM Doer LIMO PM(Dar 11•IB PEARS PEARS SATURDAY SINDAV accordance NMI Sections 4.12.7 and 4 12.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. 11 SPACES REOI.RED(11EI0 NSF) S 1•0711"0 - •The minimum off-street parkingfor all non-residential uses permitted by-right In the Pamal Yspa permitted 7y APAR7EENT 1t SAM 0.8E O.A 17S O.M uses fade In the Code of Development(Section III,Sheet 5)shall be 1 space per 200 square feet(, 11 _ COMMERCIAL PARKING CALCULATIONS(per&.Nine Cl �1 M 0.71 MIIII GLIB gross floor area(GSF).See supporting documentation for approved or requested parking % FOOTPRINT 4.100 SF 310 TowM gM3 CARO eveE) a Bit set fee 0.52 IV 4.04 reductions All other non-residential uses shall adhere to the minimum parking requirements in •i COM.ERCAL AREA 8,20D(SF I MSS 1.0/ 1/2 3LM MUM accordance wM Section 412.6 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance WALE PERAE TER WALL 110 18E 101 ABSBTEe met) MO 3.H BM0.37 SI Tors ADJUSTED ADJUSTED OSF 7.710(SF MIA pig NAI II/SO MOJA •The minimum off-street parking for all residential uses shall be(2)two spaces per unit.Garage y i BO%;hET TO DROSS) 0.232 N S. ME COMMACML TS,1SOO Fl•' I 110Vp0 10 1.SNp00 1.410.000 3461,100 1.MT1p00 spaces may county towards this off-street parking requiremenL A parking study shall be provided If a SPACES REOIA1ED(1,200 NSF) 31 Or M M M IF to Albemarle County Department of Community Development to Justify any parking reductions SCALE: 1"r 30',r: below this standard at the time of Final She Plan approval. ISSUED: 30 June 2016 7 N TOTAL •A M 1M rp /M •Any Site Plan submitted for approval to develop uses In any block shall provide a calculation for REVISIONS: BLOCK GREEN SPACE AND AMENITIES REOTRICTIONSMEWRRENEMTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE STANDARDS ABOVE: required ents hg et the request of sthS A request.If needed,for any reduction of the L 0929-16.CpKey/ALES COMMENTS p 1 Based m imam d Transportation Erene.ers OCLST IRE Abnual).Tip Gmaam,]dr-d. requirements herein accordance with Sections 4 12 7 and 4.12.8 of the Albemarle County Zoning 2.lu.02.16,COUNTY Wearer ns OEQ.IMI. BRN<MCF/AMMBNIR pc) 2 Based on r:kbwnum GSF d NmRaaatentw Lent and h the Block summer or sneer 4 Ordinance 3.11Q8-a COUNTYCOMMErrts E BLOCK PROJECT MIMES SPACE TOTAL 3.A rmr Comce kr/am base:ton l cAs are base 1 000 5F ¢ AEREABE AND MAMMYALA S OPEN SUFFERS % OMEN % TREE PRESERVATION to MACE SPICE ICI •A Tree Con areasbn Plan MI be submitted as part of the Final Site Plan.Thinning shall be u BLOCK I SO% SW 74M BLOCK I _- Of 0 O.00 permitted In designatedqu open space,green space and amenity areas al the tllrectbn of a BLOCK M SAE Mess AYE 0 0e0 7L1N.J0 Certified Tree Arbodsl(or equivalent). A. /KOCKN 76.85720 al INN 37.M w BLOCK V T MAC �I XI37 SIGNAGE AND ARCHITECTURE SHEET: •See Code of Development on Sheets 5 for Signage and Archhectural Guidelines. TOTAL SSA 3I% 1.03 21% LANDSCAPE TREATMENTS 4 O REST RICT IONSMEOUI RE RENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE STANDARDS ABOVE: •Will be determined at the Final She Plan process with the input of the Albemarle County mbers spew, and are apprownea a re sofa.,b airy. Me Fell SA.Pen process Architectural Review Board(ALBS). on Nu Ian**Mid Green Space re dipped by die Msenrla Crary&rare Ortirarc.(CO.,*Secret 3-DeGraons I. Green Score.ckCes at Amway area. enmity Spore talcWliwe do not include mew were area. Block Plan OF72 • Attachment C CODE OF DEVELOPMENT Ill-Architectural Standards V-Table of Non-Residential Uses by Block i,.rerropa^SAeer., VI-Street Cross Sections(referto Flan Sh..4) A FORM,MASSING AND PROPORTIONS Of STRUCTURES PRIVATE STREETS Lynchburg.VA 24503 -General Project InformatlOn;,rrermPre^Seesl, •InBlockI,the main massof each building are proposedto share the sameground floor elevadon. The folonng table establshes the permitted residential andnoroesdentia uses,special uses and •Road'A'and'B'will serve as private street access to all blocks.The typical section is24 curb to •I•te. bbla3t.5a1.T5aT Any buildings containing a commercial use shal relate to West Rio Road.Dormers and patioprohibited uses byblock.The letter'P'represents usesmay have gutterdepending • emleslo uadlo,com permitted either The'S'lettersre 'SP'symbolize and Streets pans' span g on for engineering requirements.Planting strips r M•Ign•rai•.com A.Principles of Inc Neighborhood Model: decks are permitted. uses allowed by special use permit one Uses not designated as eliher'P'or'SP'are prohibited In the and sidewalks are along Road'A'but not required for Road'B' • Pedestrian Orientation•Sidewalks are provided along Rio Road and Berkmar Drive,which will bbdl, AUN G.F ar000 c,P.E.LLC fie provide convenient access from the Oakleigh development to other nearby commercial uses. •in Block II,the ground floors may respond to the grading o/the adjacent proposed paring and the CO,ere See neanmhne t VA 22932 andpublic transportation.Within the Oakleigh deveb development sidewalks and pathways shown existing topography in an effort to mirwnize land disturbance Therefore,ground floor elevations of v. The anticipated street sector .2x Cranberry Lane.Crozet.vA 2xvx n spapmpa ysarePERMITTED USES throughout the development making this a pedestrian friendly deveopmenl. buildings in Block will vary eighty r cast be the hibwirg. tH•I a]4.s1t.S5u ♦=PERMUTED LASES y�l ,� el•I,�Y.ahankflnpe.wm • Mum-Modal Transportation OpponunNba-The sheets within Oakleigh are primarily •Articulation of the tagade shall occur wherever three or more units are attached.The minimum S}=SPECIAL 116E PERM(REQUIREDC .... ^..T.lsliselaM 3=A 2 K SIA 9 SA Surface designed as bavelways.Slow traffic speeds,low traffic volumes,and landscaped roadways with articulation mowed Is d-Inches. dr lot 2 sidewalks wit helpto make the streets andpaths neighborhood friendlyThis wit allow RILL=USE NOT PERMITTED WfTNN BLOCK �� 3'ar SM 25 Sax Coupe KEY: g B.PERMITTED ARCHITECTURAL STYLES BLOCK ,,,• 5 k VDOT Y21A Stone Mx opportunities for bicyclist to get to and from their destinations without the need of separate bike - sy�~j 1 lanes on the travelways.Bike racks oil be considered in Blocks I II,III and V In addition, •No restrictions on architectural styles are specified in this Cede of Development.However,some I I • M V I , ' residents and visitors alike can take advantage of the nearby pubic bus slop near Me from of common elements of style,through the use of ornamentations, blend t Me design o/all A�srsataDse' o1Res ' , ::awn ' f building Architectural des' 11 be reviewed 0 either the developer/ownerko•ghL leara7,nhrkn and one wttpa r Oakleigh. gases. designs yfulfil Aucter s I _ - r it neighborhood association. R one is utili2ed.Initially,the developer/owner wi fulfil the role of the r.. • Interconnected Sheets and Transportation Networks-interconnection Is shown on the plan neighborhood association. Sores,seedy sane • P I PIIt•.k iyptsr meet Sectors into the Berkmar Crossing Development This Interconnection will help facilitate the Churches ♦ P _ „• __ The anticipated havelways Cube•' Only rot) transportation network related to Oakleigh because there Is a traffic signal at one of the Berkman .yR. - - -:s` and parking sedbns(except CelinCrossing accesses and Rio Road.The access from Rio Road to the Oakegh development is �sM p P PPP PP P t, s� for the porous paving areas) ..--. not proposed to be signalized. Community ��—` will be the following Clubs lodges,civc,fraternal,pothole(ref.5.12) PPPPP • Parks and o s -There I rkboatedInthedeveb development. IV-Table of Residential Uses by Block irsre,teeensneel.l Commemialr.orealbrr.cMuednenkhaled%bulnotWIWIb -_,. ,-,,, -, .� 2 alSM5,A Surface serve as a Open Space padre ha Amen P P ► ► P memorial garden and buffer behvaen the front and rear uses.In addition,several amusement corners.bkwUg drys,peel lire al[t Owoe Inels W_ Cwrx large mature bees will be preserved.Benches,paths and landscaping will help facilitate this The following table establishes the permitted residential and non-residential uses,special uses and Cee••etoes office end agupewa ebraga dine P P P • 3-of am 25 ease Goose ■ � 5NVDOT/MIA Stone Base space into a park Ike environment.A tot lot is not envisioned at this time to be incorporated into prohibited uses by block.The leder'P'represents uses permitted by-right.The letters'SP'symbolize sg) w Commence slo P P i the park given the few residential units. uses allowed by special use permit only Uses not designated as either'P'or'SP'are prohibited in the Dry Care,child care,.nursery feel% P P P, Figure L Typo,n Se a.e See.* block. 4 �S• be• Notes commercial Neighborhood Centers-The commeal space within the Oakeigh development may serve Dtive-n weaken easing Or euMCW with patron d to ♦ P Wfroee pB/b/tg occurs adjacent to teaeelways the sidewalk its associated with curb as as a center to area residents and surrounding area. 1 Dng sere,p ore ieey PPPPP • Buildings and Spaces el Human Scale-Limitations am placed on building sizes heights and ►SMARTED USES a Ea1ag MYWsnere(rot Sek.eo fast food relishing)s P shown In other instances a 6'planting strip/s proposed. setbacks in Block I. P=PERMITTED USES Edsirsed ,.e.el we trade schods / P SP=SPECIAL USE PERM7 REOJ1tED Eldred parer WletelrM,tranamissim Ines and nNated towers, • Relegated Pading•InebckI pertdgIs shown In front ofBusding8.Weidng with the ARB, ELANK=l13E/YJTPERMTTEDWHHNBLOCK gsealb't'n"a�'lines,PeePeasWDonsandapp.'�naoe`: VII-Affordable Housing cr parking spaces were removed and now sadsfles their request.Additional parking has been transmission Mewled er and exchange centers maroweve and redo wave P P ► P P relegated behind and off to the side of the two commercial buildings along West Rio Road.The BLOCK transmission and relay rowan,sulatalrrs and appurtenances Refer to the Proffers for addNonal details. remaining parking within Oakleigh has been minimized and buffered throughout the site using I I • IV r (ref 6-.12) W garages,topography and introducing landscaping to help minimize any parking impacts from the Delxhted single tam y P P P Elcb,gas,el and commun.cabon fact flies,eeckding tower Semnisch.and attached sbfamly dwerr stilts Entrance Corridor sbuttu'es and rcludn Z i eg dup..triplexes.guedreplexes,:Gwrdra see alien harms and P P P ► P g poke,ores.tr eeru rs.Apes,meters 0 CO end related facikbes for local al earner and owned and • Mixture el gee.and Types•This development proposes Commercial uses in the two buildings es Pia hoses operated by•public ditty Water dstrbcton and sewerage < `^ C located In Blocks I,II and III.Residential uses are boated above and behind this commercial .4 Multiple Family dwellings Collection Ines,pumping SbM tIO and apaurtenrces owned and P P P P P U space In Block IV In Block V.assisted lying is proposed. • Rentrdaceeaory structures operated by the Mama*Corny Service Authority Except as VIII-Yard Requirements by Block rrrfsrm,Iensh..rn _, Horn.ken twellp e.etiIy disabled persons felt.E.1-S7) raherwex expressly provided,central water auip es and centre d • Mixture of Housing Types and Affordability-The applicant proposes to provide townhouses, m goading Honer z sewerage systems in wdormance rah Chapter 16 d the Coded a_assisted living,and either a type of apartment or mnmm idurn fie above the erne dal tar Tor.r.Lodges wet 5.1 17) Ally and r new a 56)idle law LOT/PARKING/BUILDING REGULATIONS • buildings to Block I.In addition a cash proffer W also provided to the County In the amount s Name°nuance Class A(ref.5.2) Partners market ins(5.1.78) P P - - /— C based on the County s affordable housing policy yt Horne OCCI.pstk3n,Cede B(ref.52) - l Z , C Fast food restate. ► P P FRONT SIDE SIDE REAR REM wM. Accesso P • P YIN.LOT MIN/MAX W O '- • RedavNopm.et-Oakkrigh le en exam of infill development. ry use send r 'Today outlet sa1w..(r and Use P P P PARKING BUILDING PARKING BUILDING PARKING BUILDING example 'A:cesscy uses and stings nrdotng storage kW. P P ► P P WIDTH STORIES a U "? Feed end seed store(reference 5.112) SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK SETBACK HEIGHTy • Slte Planning that Respects Terrain-The applicant is making a large effort to preserve as eat home,miming lame a comaksoerll home P P P Fenno.mtilutiwr P P ♦ z t many of the existing mature trees on the site and do as little grading as possible within their Fore ringt•slherara sealer/MICta,eater ae0.emce •_P / - ROCK 1 125' 1S O n {' 3(y S to WC13 L =5 vicinityFwe P P P BLOCK■ 125 15 O r {' 5 S eO vs N I Accessory epertnags are permitted n simple family dwellings only Food tine procure stow inducing aYClh swift shops as ltakry, ' 2 No contactor equipment sin yards will be permitted or allowed. P P P BLOCK■ 720 10 10 !' S S b IK Q O __ • Clear Boundaries with the Rural Areas-This development W located in the development area rage ear Clay,milk d-pstusy end slime and cheese slap BLOCK N 1S D r a ice S in w , (� 3.Eating esladrshmeras shall be consdered n Me COD as'Restaurant'as dehrsed by the aniline are b+e fates aid aerwce P P P _ •Q so this principle is not applicable. enemas( ) BLOCK V sa 1Cf 10' 1O 10 S 1/3 ES Z 3 boomer.County Znurg Ordinance.The purposed Sot it to allow cone shop,cafes, -lunchrooms,luncheonette;luncheonetes for Bose wear the Oakkgh protect waking in the commercial Health Horsham sloe P P P Z Q o i). 4 A mazrmuer d 75 seats is mowed.No amplified node will be peemned sad 10 PM Home business ew'aws axh s 0 S II-Block Characteristics fr., a,a^saewel., grourdscandewing. RESTRI:TIONS/REQUIREMENTBRWTESASSOCIATEDVATHTHESTANDARDSABOVE ` earermn ears,Ia'G capig,and other roper and ma nacre P P P 1 Interior lot liras wi Pose a O srlb•ck along streets.roads-access easements or Id lines.4'setbacks oil W ssnross T jJ -` y Holds, and nM P P be applied a CM.of lot Pea. - ///,,,(((��`` V/ t1I ?Rider Is the Coded Devenprnem on Sheet Slor dNrlsmMe Permitted Uses log j - \ 1 3.Curt and rprteroes'may fall into r perking setbacksa id s i x� / .� •Y ✓, ♦� taer erect,foci des P P 4.Attached units AO Common wails wit have a O Sae Building Setback.Side Bulldog Setbacks apply to P e ♦ Laa000 ore,meted or pharmaceutical •P ► P P ► exleror end units. ti\ .�, 7 y� _ LaaMiee,dry dramas(arocne.g o ge ment goon alkelle) P P P b.Al roads are private with public access easements over them `e ( ` ••�'-". •1-•• p'.v L r i`s Lauhto tat gravd.the an attendant shall be on day a r here overhangs may encroach into Building Setbacks up ro l4')feet 7 g _ 6 Architectural feawres and eerna tbacks shown are only for f� a'• 1 h Libraries,msreuns) _ P P P'. 6.&Al rt naparki g snail not be cons�ts sue,or more spaces. `v I *laical instrument sales P ► P i �) ••� -Jiff ;?!j i I Newnatarde,magazines,pipe and tobacco shop. P P P y rot . - { Newsppen pokah,g e+ Li: t Olce and business macNnes sales and armorP P p1' Optical gone salesP P PosI Oudoo pM Baler' P P JF Outdoor storage,dopey and/or saes se,mg or*sweated with a At-----* by-right usepermittedanyportionof be SP SP _?- IP )' a Canby destgnaled Emrarae Condor e Photographic goods sales P_ P P V� _ IPorwaleachoote _ ► ► P S► ► ( ILI_ rokasioel dgces,kclWkg maroondMW cud o{Acal P • P P P g' f /)! ' Fttblic Las and but dings including temporary en mobile tacABes !I such as settee offices,parks,playgro ie and reads funded, a • Block I•May consist of three-story cemmerdal building fade owned or operated by bcel,stale.en federal agencies,public water 9 g and oriented with West Rio P P P P P Road There isproposed a sunken laze in the front.P for this s and sewer traromesbn,manor trunk lee.treatment facilibes, gq p Programming construction. pace is pumping stations and the W,owned and/or operated by the '1 B undetermined at this time and will be%naldzed at the the of construNon.Primary access MI be Riwnra lay and Sewer A1IM y { from the rear which will be accessed al the second floor Parking Is relegated to the rear and 5 side of this building.Integrated into the butldtg on the third floor may be residential units.No Research are deveapmem activities incluirg expert-neetal testing ♦ ♦ P P P 0 4 retail is envisioned in this bolding Reed n.rseres ant greenhouses j • Block I-May also consist of a three-story commercial building.This boldingwill be similar to Sporting goods Saba ► P P the one in Block I but might include retail uses.Paring is avaiabk both n the front end rear Stand afore perkily tiro prang ttrt rw.ens.Alerr 2;S.1Ai1 ► P P P p 0 management facie..•town n an apposed in/site The parking on the front allows Interconnection between Bedmar Crossing with our site for Stoma o� ve P P P P P asa raster a000CtINliry to the light at That development Swim golf tenon o-senior athletic Wine PPPP E • Block II-Consist of a two story commercial building Envisioned uses for rho building include Tai en searnshsas _ P P P P11 doctors,dentists and other health care professionals.Another possibility would bee daycare Tam porary nmsee.dcOnertiCl.e d ore foci.5.1.15) P P P ► - center serving the development.Parting is relegated behind Block II from West Rio Road and Temporary ranrsaen e.mole tents(ra SS) E accessed off Road A Vesal and a,d apperas saes P P E S ___.Wawa stands-vep caw•eta asttttflilmi'p_Loan W_t__e—r P_.e♦• x • Block IV-Block IV Is located off to the side of Block V behind Block I This may consist of Dry BIirtag plants(PO5Iis.S a'wmra gelds anode) /y traditional residential Iownhomes.Private access off Road B i provided.A pocket park will be i W TM 1 or ten I%UMW WlWius ignite Nolan (' located In this Nock and overlap with Block V This pad may serve as a buffer between the front 2 M Rawl Sens end Shops - P SCALE: 1"2 30'§E and rear of the Oakleigh development. Peking Structure 1 Struck,.Pan PPPP ISSUED. 30 June 2016 i C,,.Wp,yaa.s.c ltidae.n kelesM •�M PPPP REVISIONS: • Block V-An assisted living facility W envisioned for this block,ore would be developed es ES p4 EaMnpt PPP !,p p Z �e11 1.09.2416.COUNTY'w,10e Clr,rs s O Q 11-02-36,COUNTY COMMENTS residential uses. S ifI 3.11-28.I8,COUNTY COMMENTS V A r ee L 1 Accessory aware*are permitted n single family dwellings sly tt ii2 No contractor equipment storage cads coo he permitted or Mowed, 3 Piling eswdihmefts shall be considered in this COD as•Reerwem-as defined by the a AEenhrte county Zoning Ordeance The purpose d this is to row ages shops.cafes. SHEET: lunchrooms,luncheonettes for those who the Oakkrgh propel swing In Pe Commercial 4 A m.erur d 75 seats a a%ow.0 No ampied none will be permitted alien 10 PM. 5 , f O H 2 a Code of S Development w OF 7rc .' ,-QV. O m bJ Z � \••�-1 A QR • \/1C q!:HJ 1111111\1\0 // Ilit/��e.. c . .vT-�� \ I / `O\ �. \ 0 / \\\ / i V .0r.,E, , \,.,..`.:,..._ -.2----____ -., /if* \\ / ,r: . ,•' „ „,,, xi ' . \ ,,( ,...,..- \ \ �7�r. _ i �` / \ \\ \ , ---. 41,.., __ `, \\ \\\\ .... '41%iNk / / 1, ili /...... ,,,,,, _ -- gqik %i4 / ay �; I / �i I `,'\ \ \ , \ \ 4 wo0 \,,0 �!s \ I \ amoi%m / 1 A A mmz z Ti 0r.� 1 I \ \ \\ \ �� Avm2smC \ \ \ \ m a h / sb \ 1\ ` \ m�=coiy \ I t Y1_ I 111 1' V A r / ----}=j, ____-‘ I -- ---AktigooAk.: \\ \\ \ lip r •I \ elA_,04 \ \ \\\ \\ I \v/iw410 , II ! r\ \ \ I 1 1 A IvI v, z vvv 11 1 I ' o \ 141111411LA 4110 \ i - I Ij,1,111 ' lii [,.. I \ Ia \\ \ \ \\ 11 1 mpi%,..,--- r 4i v\ % �"fal4\r ,., N \\ \\ \ijithi, \ \\ \� $ III 1 u ,M : •/�� if," 1'1 II j _ _ f ,.. �., i .. y,�✓ Y)Ii 1 % L_ ___=- ,.1ildthil 1: ? x , , j ,.., ....,.... ., 1-71101 1 ' isioki. ,J 441107,0 ' \ \ \ ; .. ......,-.--,,..„...„ ,\ Tiri -71 „.„„„..:L.,...-_ -- ,..ec , , aP4QgS�a4F4.G v 1�1 A W 11 1 1 �v , ,.., .... ,\ \ .„ . ., , , 7 ,,, ions --- - ,„,07---,„.,,, \ el . , v- ,. ,___ _ .. . ____1• . �„ : •I 1 , �. ____ _.---,> > \\ .., 1 , ,..,...,, \ ,„ m \ /s , , . — --_, , , ... i. _=11,/, ob, _ _, • ii „---_-/-' .., 7 iI M ':'� ��I`f IIIW �! , , r co / - -- 1 / ,,.--***--7:1, / , , -gi IIIIA wiliPAIMPLI3. ,:iF *.•• . ' N' s.,141Ailitiii1:1:lini:ili:i:i:!:;:rgoe,.i.r:,,, ,_.2• . L) 6 1., AO MEL-11 5.4%.1\,___ , ‘‘ - -0011iIiiiniiiii01"" -.'iw. •.,s(-_.....a.00 ---- ‘ ti, \, _,,,,.........0000." . 0: ,, .....„.•, 1 • . ' 2 ri__,---•-—---=_*_.11W, ii- $11:4a0.107101/°°1 -- --- -- -4.:- e-e e-o�o-a o�ro \ -—..,...r •.•1•ca_is I - /-i -- , - f - -�- - - 4 pO N i — / \ \ 4 i / / A / ..., /---I � ( / -----,, . fA D m v a a) 1 & ill REZONING AMENDMENT APPLICATION FOR I i a : > 111 % Oakleigh410 ' rp ftxi di i, Albemarle County, Virginia \ 3s ll ` g! w 33§ PROGRESS PRINT:NOT RELEASED FOR CONSTRUCTION rto—::::: �"..�a°�°m"'wr,,A"m, .m"�`"..,...-"'.'°".`cy'.°°"7.a'.�arsee'mo+�oN,.',"r..°�a• .'.rowo7ro °'e'.ew.,yw""i"°'a6aw. , >w..a"m"...a. ..n. ... ,a" e.`w.m.n�. m- 7,,.,- m. auom. n.cc m.,, w.... IS eD 1 n r a — Attachment C UNIT TYPES AND BREAKDOWN \\ \\ , e 4 �, -w wale •I:0. /' 1 , • Can01.■r E • E► \ _ ry ax8]1.T'JO) •\ \ •I•.,.a..,a.e•.IE.awr.cw• v v v v .a•„e.ew9„w,a0.••m 0 o014101 611 , / I% \`\ I� V� "„ GREEN SPACE ALARQFRARKL.,P.E.LLC \ CMI and SIN P1wJp En9*Ing ▪ ,, oWe1E!EWoaEAu . t �- \\\\ r`\� 427 Cra D•:y L..Gout VA 23932 F WI00•MW 14 ;.,\ MMI 434.531.554A o mJFJOE3oMEE1aEEE•WawroE 4 .l \\ �1 • • • AMENITY AREAS •�•r�iM1io1°°0°.`°'° l /' ` \ vl • KEY: R mmnar• 24 • .•.• 1 21I211.10E W WAQEF•W 081EVJE E - # \\ `\ J f11JH\EE 1DE•MIaE•W WEAOE / .�.I • .. I -• - \ \ F r \ " THIS SCENARIO MATCHES THE APPROVED _. < I K MOEEA1Lr DETAOED 10 \ \ • \`\ \ k, GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPROVED .), L waE FAAar DE3AOED 1 `♦r ..... . . \f� ` ` BY THE BOS IN ZMA#2007-04 AND THE THE TOTAL COMMERCIAL SPACE AVAILABLE IS \ 1..0906E APPROVED SITE PLAN(SDP200800101). •... , /� /' `\ ` q / r CJ 1 / \ \ \ \ ( 1 .1h,„%- THE / \ 411) , GARDEN 2_\ .., v' a SPOT \ Tv P \ , CC ' I O II ♦ `)1,4111b. / Z� ♦ Li_ \,..:16 k 4,'-- 4 ii-- g _c .6, -e%""3 --A- - 4) ..41111111117'. 1111011111 , I, 4„\lt ' ) I___ 2 'CI 0 JO--- 4 ett`•> 2 ‘ 'ti lid 'r I y • I\ \ ••• yIA \ 'f•••.••'/ / PROPOSED '': 1� . U °Ole - ° ► V EMERGENCYACCE• \ A {a ' op y`tP RVE:i`- 5 TO REMAIN•- G Y' \ ycP t° Tllpo, ly 1 Z 11 kolo �\ a yvcN ! -:J?:••i;•:;� �I",. \ sC. 9 15 4 `\` '1 Q I`` P 1 1 P°� .�� ' ,, S':• \ OPEN•� !� - Z R a / SPACE ) \ \ g§ ;; PERVIo113 :.".i�;r i �14A .::� i A __ ��' I. ik' PAVING:TrP "' yrlot i:; • / i' d �Fss=__:: \::iv `�� sik 1111 •{ � jF _ 11 ` ��-• ii 16 RE IDIML1L _ _ \ / 17 , i'.I 1 `y. i II immilemik i '. .•, .: . ' 1 ...:ilni Ilk y - 1!.,:gi , \ 1, WOODB RN ROAD 1: C)4 — of _ I \4*\ i ;., KO. r,._ , • .. !*!:!,! SAVED' / ue.e.e., 1,1iiiii! 1.2.11A i i 7 A1TR fl, 3 111. l st 111$71/1146'‘16" POND mg AIN— 1 isoi \ A, 6 � ' 1 \ I X _a>ro k96 ao ; ... . .. I11111111111111 . �� 1; since..N,,.vir1 es • �� -. . • •_ NICHOLSCOLJRT �■�. � ;" I� I� •Imo. ■,• �`II) • Fig: - `. \ ��_O� / ;::: '/ l� • A Ri rpm i ,■I� 13 :1•11. J\J\ ■ I111 �� E5 1 *IFr (, �� 11 1MD i ►�� 'a '•�i37: M I _ AIv1G N1aJdmsI It z OVEft1MNG'TYP111111(6 L•NIT9])46 Lr.N.SSYE ■ j...•.•... ..\.•.•IIIIIII' :::V'E3•!'11glig •S• Uligggli.. 1 ~ ... 200 S!COAIMERCNL I{{•}WI::.1••• RLSIDGN1T11IIINI £Sit . CI - : V •I I 1 i•, SCALE: 1•'=30' �" 'ERI-I-AGE • .2. J— �, 2 —I r ••'� ii' • 1 ISSUED: 30 June 2016 z I 4 'Lim, I1• /- REVISK)NS: HALL �.�_._�_ — 6F•{.5•��•ate:;: W7I kcc��•< :'i:• !�}�..'•'• '::::_•�''••'• 1 ® MI I ) / 10929-I6.COUNTY/MSCOMMENISp••• :}•:: :::: •- !-�s'ti•:l::I: :i!i!i ti::1:!:i:!: :!:!'x'!7•_'i 1 •!0, ( 2.11-02-16.CWN-z..EMS F 68.50 . •--8).33 88.50 — • — •• •I— • - —-- ---- . 1 ..J•E!!a I.7Y•.E 1 4 W.••EEEEr�A•� J Il 1 L / 3.SS-2618,COUNTY COMMENTS 89.67 89A0 88.33 8).6) 8)00 8633 ,, •■ u' I fi 6 I ■ . Q ♦ 76.50 ))16 7.3 7 8.50 ' UNRS5l-M I I I I2 O LLM00/e0C0 52 51 tp 49 VB ! _ I I_ J1 CD , iL _ — _ J r %-- • Ftiel SHEET: r w mmmir. AO /� • 1 /I IR\ �J 1 I� ; 6B , -- a�•--�• .44Allik .. O L_ 1 ( 1 BERKLEY BERItNIAR ) Application Plan H SUBDIVISION 1 § ri 1 .-1 0 CROSSING it Scenario 1, . OF re o. P = PERMITTED USES SP = SPECIAL USE PERMIT REQUIRED BLANK = USE NOT PERMITTED WITHIN BLOCK I II I II III IV V Detached single family P P P P Semi-detached and attached single-family dwellings such as duplexes, triplexes, quadraplexes, townhouses, atrium houses and patio houses P P P P P P Multiple Family dwellings P P P P P P P Rental of accessory structures P P P P P P P Homes for developmentally disabled persons (ref. 5.1.07)P P P P P P P Boarding Houses Tourist Lodges (ref. 5.1.17)P P P P P P P Home Occupation, Class A (ref. 5.2)P P P P P P P Home Occupation, Class B (ref. 5.2)SP SP Accessory Apartments 1 P P P Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings P P P P P Assisted living P P P Rest home, nursing home or convalescent home P P P I II I II III IV V Administrative, professional offices P P P P P P Antique, gift, jewelry, notion and craft shops P P P P P P Auction houses Barber, beauty shops P P P P Churches P P Cemeteries (only as currently exist) Clothing, apparel and shoe shops P P P Community Center/Clubhouse P P P P P Clubs, lodges, civic, fraternal, patriotic (ref. 5.1.2)P P P P P Commercial recreation establishments including but not limited to amusement centers, bowling alleys, pool halls and dance halls P P P P P Contractor's office and equipment storage yard 2 P P P Convenience stores P P Day Care, child care, or nursery facility P P P Department store Drive-in windows serving or associated with permitted uses P P Drug store, pharmacy P P P P P Eating establishment (not including fast food restaurant) 3 P P P Educational, technical and trade schools P P P Electrical power substations, transmission lines and related towers; gas or oil transmission lines, pumping stations and appurtenances; unmanned telephone exchange centers; microwave and radio wave transmission and relay towers, substations and appurtenances (ref. 5.1.12) P P P P P Electric, gas, oil and communication facilities, excluding tower structures and including poles, lines, transformers, pipes, meters and related facilities for distribution of local service and owned and operated by a public utility. Water distribution and sewerage collection lines, pumping stations and appurtenances owned and operated by the Albemarle County Service Authority. Except as otherwise expressly provided, central water supplies and central sewerage systems in conformance with Chapter 16 of the Code of Albemarle and all other applicable law P P P P P Farmer's market (ref. 5.1.36)P P Fast food restaurant P P P Factory outlet sales-clothing and fabric P P P P Feed and seed stores (reference 5.1.22) Financial institutions P P P P Fire extinguisher and security products, sales and service P P P Florist P P P P Food and grocery stores including such specialty shops as bakery, candy, milk dispensary and wine and cheese shops P P P P Furniture and home appliances (sales and service)P P P P Hardware store P P P Health spas P P P P Home and business services such as grounds care, cleaning, exterminators, landscaping, and other repair and maintenance services P P P Hotels, motels and inns P P Indoor theaters Indoor athletic facilities P P Laboratories, medical or pharmaceutical P P P P P Laundries, dry cleaners (processing of garment goods off-site)P P P P Laundromat (provided that an attendant shall be on duty at all hours during operation) Libraries, museums P P P Musical Instrument sales P P P P Newsstands, magazines, pipe and tobacco shops P P P P Newspaper publishing Office and business machines sales and service P P P P Optical goods sales P P P P Outdoor amphitheater 4 P P PNON-RESIDENTIAL USESEXISTING VS. PROPOSED PERMITTED USES TABLE BLOCK RESIDENTIAL USES1. Accessory apartments are permitted in single family dwellings only. Existing Approved Use Table under ZMA200700004 Proposed Use Table under ZMA201600015 (Note: Within this column, Blocks I and II correspond with the area of Block I from 2007 and Blocks III, IV and V correspond with Block II from 2007) BLOCK BLOCK BLOCK 2. No contractor equipment storage yards will be permitted or allowed. 3. Eating establishments shall be considered in this COD as “Restaurant” as defined by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this is to allow coffee shops, cafes, lunchrooms, luncheonettes for those within the Oakleigh project working in the commercial buildings or visiting the site for commercial activities. 4. A maximum of 75 seats is allowed. No amplified noise will be permitted after 10 PM. Outdoor storage, display and/or sales serving or associated with a by- right permitted use, if any portion of the use would be visible from a County designated Entrance Corridor SP SP Photographic goods sales P P P Private schools P P P SP P Professional offices, including medical, dental and optical P P P P P P Public uses and buildings including temporary or mobile facilities such as schools, offices, parks, playgrounds and roads funded, owned or operated by local, state, or federal agencies, public water and sewer transmission, main or trunk lines, treatment facilities, pumping stations and the like, owned and/or operated by the Rivanna Water and Sewer Authority P P P P P P Research and development activities including experimental testing P P P P P P Retail nurseries and greenhouses School of special instruction P Sporting goods sales P P P Stand alone parking and parking structures (ref. 4.12; 5.1.41)P P P P P Stormwater management facilities shown on an approved final site plan or subdivision plat P P P P P P Swim, golf, tennis or similar athletic facilities P P P P P Tailor, seamstress P P P P P P Temporary construction uses (ref. 5.1.18)P P P P P P Temporary non-residential mobile homes (ref. 5.8) Visual and audio appliances sales P P P P Wayside stands-vegetable and agricultural produce (ref. 5.1.19)P P P P P Dry cleaning plants (processing of garment goods on-site) Tier I or Tier II Personal Wireless Service Facilities P P P P P P P Retail Stores and Shops P P P Parking Structure / Structured Parking P P P P P Accessory uses and buildings including storage buildings P P P P P Collocation, Exempt P P P P P 4. A maximum of 75 seats is allowed. No amplified noise will be permitted after 10 PM. 1. Accessory apartments are permitted in single family dwellings only. 2. No contractor equipment storage yards will be permitted or allowed. 3. Eating establishments shall be considered in this COD as “Restaurant” as defined by the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance. The purpose of this is to allow coffee shops, cafes, ADDITIONAL NON-RESIDENTIAL USES DRAFT PROFFER STATEMENT OAKLEIGH AMENDMENT Date: November 2, 2016 ZMA#: 2016-00015 Oakleigh Amendment #1 Tax Map Parcel #: 04500-00-00-026A0 8.8 acres to be rezoned from Neighborhood Model Development (“NMD”) to NMD to amend proffers Oakleigh Albemarle LLC, a Virginia limited liability company, is the fee simple owner (the “Owner”) of Tax Map 45, Parcel 26A (the “Property”) which is the subject of the zoning map amendment application #ZMA-2016-00015 known as “Oakleigh.” The Applicant for Oakleigh is Oakleigh Albemarle LLC, a Virginia limited liability company. The Oakleigh community is herein referred to as the “Project.” Pursuant to Section 33.3 of the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance, Owner hereby voluntary proffers the conditions listed in this Proffer Statement, which shall be applied to the Property if the rezoning is approved by Albemarle County. These conditions are proffered as part of the rezoning and it is agreed that the conditions are reasonable. This proffer statement shall supersede and replace in all respects the proffer statement approved by the Board of Supervisors in connection with ZMA-2007-00004. 1. Affordable Housing. A. 15% Affordable Requirement. The Owner shall provide cash in lieu of affordable housing units equivalent to fifteen percent (15%) of the total residential dwelling units within the Project that is in excess of the number of units that were allowed by right under the zoning that was in existence prior to the approval of ZMA 2007-0004 (the “15% Affordable Requirement”). Prior to the approval of ZMA 2007-00004, the property was zoned R-6 Residential, and thus had by-right development yield of 52 dwelling units. Therefore, the cash contribution for compliance with the Affordable Housing Requirement shall begin after a certificate of occupancy for the 52nd dwelling unit within the Project is issued and prior to the Owner obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the 53rd dwelling unit within the Project. B. Cash Proffer For Affordable Housing Requirement. If there are more than 52 dwelling units within the Project such that the 15% Affordable Housing Requirement is applicable, the Owner shall make a cash contribution to Albemarle County for the affordable housing program in the amount of Nineteen Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($19,100) for each such unit (the “Affordable Housing Cash Proffer”). Any unit for which the Affordable Housing Cash Proffer is contributed as provided herein shall count as an Affordable Dwelling Unit for purposes of this Paragraph 1. 2 2. Cash Proffer. A. The Owner shall contribute cash to the County in the following amounts for each dwelling unit constructed within the Property that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit (a “Market Rate Unit”), and that is in excess of the number of units that were allowed by right under the zoning that was in existence prior to the approval of ZMA 2007-0004. Prior to the approval of ZMA 2007-00004, the property was zoned R-6 Residential, and thus had by-right development yield of 52 dwelling units. Therefore, the cash contribution for Market Rate Units shall begin after a certificate of occupancy for the 52nd dwelling unit within the Project is issued and prior to the Owner obtaining a certificate of occupancy for the 53rd dwelling unit within the Project. The cash contributions shall be used to address the fiscal impacts of development on the County’s public facilities and infrastructure (i.e., schools, public safety, libraries, parks and transportation) identified in the County’s Capital Improvements Program. The cash contributions shall be paid in the following amounts: (i). Seven Thousand Three Hundred and Thirty-Three and 18/100s Dollars ($7,333.18) for each single-family detached dwelling unit; (ii). Five Thousand Four Hundred and Forty-Seven and 57/100s Dollars ($5,447.57) for each single family attached dwelling unit that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit. (iii). Seven Thousand Four Hundred and Nineteen and 91/100s Dollars ($7,419.91) for each multifamily dwelling unit that is not an Affordable Dwelling Unit. (iv). Zero Dollars ($0.00) for each Affordable Dwelling Unit. B. Annual Adjustment of Cash Proffers. Beginning January 1 of each year following the approval of this rezoning, the amount of each cash contribution required herein shall be adjusted annually until paid, to reflect any increase or decrease for the preceding calendar year in the Comparative Cost Multiplier, Regional City Average, Southeast Average, Category C: Masonry Bearing Walls issued by Marshall Valuation Service (a/k/a Marshall & Swift) (the “Index”) or the most applicable Marshall & Swift index determined by the County if publication of the specific index referenced herein in discontinued. In no event shall any cash contribution amount be adjusted to a sum less than the amount initially established by these proffers. The annual adjustment shall be made by multiplying the proffered cash contribution amount for the preceding year by a fraction, the numerator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the proceeding calendar year, and the denominator of which shall be the Index as of December 1 in the year preceding the calendar year most recently ended (the “Annual Percentage Change”). 3. Tree Preservation. As part of the final site plan for the Project the Owner will submit a tree preservation plan (the “Tree Plan”) for thirteen (13) trees within the Project, as shown on the Application Plan, which specifies tree protection methods and procedures, including fertilizing, tree protection fencing, mulching, and site construction activities which shall be complied with during and after development of the Project. Prior to the final site plan approval, the Owner shall submit a bond or other form of surety in the total amount of ________________________ ($______________). The bond or surety shall be submitted to 3 guaranty the replacement of those trees which are numbered 1, 1 A, 2, 3, 4, 4A, 5, 7, 8, 9, 30, 31, and 32 on the Application Plan (the “Bonded Trees”) in the event that any of the Bonded Trees die within a period of five (5) years after issuance of the last Certificate of Occupancy within the Project. The bond or other surety shall be in a form acceptable to the County Attorney. 4. Pedestrian Easement. The Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for the Project shall contain a provision which grants a public right of pedestrian access over all sidewalks within the Project. This right shall be in perpetuity and the Declaration shall name the County of Albemarle, Virginia as a third-party beneficiary with the express right to enforce the provisions of such public right of access. [SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS] 4 WITNESS the following duly authorized signature: Owner: OAKLEIGH ALBEMARLE LLC, a Virginia Limited Liability Company By: __________________________________ Printed Name: __________________________ Title: ________________________________ 31491018_4 Points of Interest AIRPORT COLLEGE/UNIVERSITY COMMUNITY FIRE/RESCUE STATION GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LIBRARY POLICE STATION POST OFFICE RECREATION/TOURISM SCHOOL Parcel Info Parcels Comp Plan Land Use Info Urban Development Area Comprehensive Plan Area Crozet Master Plan Land Greenspace * Neighborhood Density Re Neighborhood Density Re Urban Density Residential Mixed-Use Downtown Institutional Light Industrial See Crozet Masterplan Te Pantops Master Plan Land Neighborhood Density Re Urban Density Residential Urban Mixed Use Institutional Employment District Employment Mixed Use Commercial Mixed Use Parks Greenspace River Corridor Rural Area Places29 Master Plan Mix C - Community Center D - Destination Center NS - Neighborhood Servic Up - Uptown Places29 Master Plan Lan Airport District Urban Mixed Use (in Cent Urban Mixed Use (in area Commercial Mixed Use Urban Density Residential Neighborhood Density Re Office / R & D / Flex / Light Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Institutional Public Open Space Privately Owned Open Sp Southern and Western Urb Neighborhood Density Re Neighborhood Mixed Use Urban Density Residential Community Mixed Use Regional Mixed Use Office / R & D / Flex / Light Industrial Institutional Parks and Green Systems Village of Rivanna Master Neighborhood Density Re Neighborhood Density Re Town/Village Center Institutional Parks and Green Systems Comprehensive Plan Map Map is for Display Purposes Only • Aerial Imagery from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Other Sources November 30, 2016 GIS-Web Geographic Data Services www.albemarle.org (434) 296-5832 Legend (Note: Some items on map may not appear in legend) 200 ft ���pti.4lRnjq �'IRGSD}L� COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road, North Wing Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596 Phone (434) 296-5832 September 9, 2016 Steve Edwards 4936 Old Boonsboro Road Lynchburg, VA 24503 steve@edwardsdesignstudio.com RE: ZMA201600015 Oakleigh Dear Steve: Fax(434)972-4126 County and other staff have reviewed your initial submittal to rezone Tax Map and Parcel 04500-00-00-026AO from the existing Neighborhood Model District (NMD) approved as ZMA200700004 Oakleigh Farm to a new NMD with a revised Application Plan, Code of Development and Proffers. Available comments from each reviewer are provided below or attached, however, the major issues that should be addressed before moving forward to the Planning Commission are summarized below. These comments are outlined in more detail under each reviewer listed in this letter. • Approval of the site layout from Fire/Rescue: o Based on the size of the proposed assisted living facility, Block V needs another point of access. An approved turnaround or connection is also required for Block IV. • Additional information is needed to demonstrate how the revised proffers fully mitigate the impacts of the proposed development. • Any major changes identified by the Architectural Review Board at the September 19th meeting should also be incorporated. (Please keep in mind that changes made to address these issues may create comments from other reviewers that currently have no objection to the proposal.) Zonine Division The Zoning Division does not object to an assisted living facility being permitted by -right in Block IV and Block V as requested on Sheet 5 of the Application Plan. Assisted living facilities are grouped in the Zoning Ordinance under "Rest home, nursing home, convalescent home, 1 orphanage or similar institution." Within conventional zoning districts, this use is only permitted by special use permit and therefore have historically been approved with conditions to mitigate their impacts on the surrounding area. Any necessary "conditions" or mitigation for this proposal can be incorporated into the Application Plan and Code of Development. Section 5.1.13 of the Zoning Ordinance also contains the following supplemental regulations applicable to this use and to this request: a. Such uses shall be provided in locations where the physical surroundings are compatible to the particular area; b. No such use shall be established in any area either by right or by special use permit until the Albemarle County fire official has determined that adequate fire protection is available to such use; c. Generally such uses should be located in proximity to or in short response time to emergency medical and fire protection facilities. Uses for the elderly and handicapped should be convenient to shopping, social, education and cultural uses; d. No such use shall be operated without approval and, where appropriate, licensing by such agencies as the Virginia Department of Welfare, the Virginia Department of Health, and other such appropriate local, state and federal agencies as may have authority in a particular case. Staff comments are mainly focused on ensuring compliance with subsections (b), (c) and (d). The requirements of subsections (b) and (c) can be met by responding to the Fire/Rescue requirements. Compliance with subsection (d) can be demonstrated with additional information about what (if any) other requirements from State and/or Federal agencies apply to the proposed assisted living facility. Federal regulations are cited as a justification for a larger building footprint in the "Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan" section of the project narrative, but exactly what Federal regulations are being referenced in this section? The Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors will need to understand how the proposal is exempt from any additional requirements or how compliance with the other requirements will be verified. This information may also help address the question raised in the Community Meeting about whether or not a "Virginia Certificate of Public Need" is required. Comment on the Community Meeting will be included in the staff report. The meeting held on August 31St at Northside Library satisfied the requirements for a community meeting as described in Section 33.4 of the Zoning Ordinance. Plannine Division Based on the variety of elements in this proposal and the overall lot coverage, the initial comments aim to address criteria that will be relevant for both the legislative and ministerial reviews of the site. For the legislative review, as stated in the pre -application comments, the proposed footprint of the assisted living facility is almost triple the recommended maximum footprint, therefore this building will be considered "by -exception" as described in the Places29 Master Plan. Can you provide any additional justification (such as quantitative information) about the public need in our area and why the economics of this type of facility necessitates a single building of this size? 2 Additional information is also needed to analyze the revised proffers. Staff needs to understand how the proposed proffers mitigate impacts of the proposed development. The proposed proffers may be compared to the existing approved proffers on the site, but the previous R-6 residential zoning that existed prior to 2008 is no longer relevant. The additional information should provide a justification for how the revised proffers mitigate impacts from the proposed development. Without additional information, staff would not recommend approval of revised Proffers #1 and #2. Comprehensive Plan Comments on conformity with the Comprehensive Plan are provided to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors as part of the staff report. The site is primarily designated as Urban Density Residential (shown in orange) and also contains a small portion of a Neighborhood Service Center (shown as the pink hatched area). Assisted living facilities are considered an institutional use in the Places29 Master Plan and are recommended as a secondary use under the Urban Density Residential designation. Broadly, staff finds the mixture and densities of the proposed and permitted uses to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Neighborhood Model Projects located within the Development Areas are reviewed for consistency with each of the Neighborhood Model Principles found in the Comprehensive Plan (see Objective 2 in the Development Areas chapter). Staff finds that the existing project narrative adequately addresses each of the Neighborhood Model Principles except for Multi -Modal Transportation Opportunities. It appears that an outdated list of principles may have been referenced for completing the application. Please provide information about consistency with the principle for Multi -Modal Transportation Opportunities on the revised Sheet 5 of the Application Plan. Conceptual Plan Comments related to the ministerial review are provided below. As the County has gained more experience administering NMD developments at the site plan and subdivision review stage, the flexibility from very specific language and detail in the Application Plan and Code of Development has been invaluable. With this in mind, staff recommends the following changes: Sheet 1: Sheet 4: Please change the application number of the existing site plan to SDP200800101. Please include a revision date on the coversheet, if revised. Sheet 6 shows six proposed townhouse units, but the Parking Data, Trip Generation and other descriptions show only five units. Please revise. 3 Sheet 5: • The Neighborhood Model Principles no longer include "Neighborhood Friendly Streets and Paths." Please replace this principle with "Multi -Modal Transportation Opportunities." • Under Block Characteristics, please revise the word "shall" wherever possible. Staff will administer the word "shall" as a requirement that can only be changed through a variation or rezoning process. • Under Architectural Standards, please remove letters C, D and E. The County will rely on the ARB review to review these standards. • Under Table of Residential Uses by Block, please revise footnote 3 to show "Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance" instead of "Albemarle County Code." • Under the Table of Non -Residential Uses by Block, within the Additional Non - Residential Uses row, there is a footnote 4 shown for "Retail Stores and Shops" but no such footnote exists. Please revise. • Under Yard Requirements by Block, please remove the Front Lot Lines column. One additional comment: Can you specify a range of beds to be provided in the assisted living facility? On Sheet 4, the Application Plan cites 93 dwelling units in the Development Block Summary, but the Parking Data cites 119 units. Sheet 5 references 93 dwelling units as well. Then, 109 beds were discussed at the Community Meeting. Please revise this number throughout the Application Plan to be consistent. Engineering — Frank Pohl, 434-296-5832, ext. 7914, fpohl@albemarle.org Comments will be forthcoming the week of 9/12-9/16. ACSA — Alex Morrison, amorrison@serviceauthority.org 1. Water/sewer construction plan submittal to the ACSA will be required at the final site plan stage. 2. Water and sewer infrastructure will be reviewed during the construction plan review. 3. Additional fire hydrant coverage on site will be required (Fire/Rescue will comment on proper spacing and placement). 4. A master meter will be required for the assisted living building. 5. Water service will be supplied through the Stillhouse pressure band. 6. A grease interceptor will be required. 7. RWSA Wastewater Capacity Certification may be required at the final site plan stage. If required the ACSA will file for this certification. I have CC'ed Robbie Gilmer [on my comments] because he will handle fire hydrant placement and density for the site (I am not familiar with the requirements for an assisted living building). None of the comments above affect our position on the ZMA so I hereby recommend approval of ZMA201600015. W VDOT —Adam Moore, adam.moore@vdot.virginia.gov Please see attached comments. Fire/Rescue — Robbie Gilmer, 434-296-5833, rgilmer@albemarle.org Fire Rescue has no objections to the rezoning, please see comments below for possible connection issues. 1. Fire Rescue will require a second entrance to Block V. Preferred location would be a connection between this property and 505 East Rio Road. 2. Fire Rescue will require an approved turn around or connection for Block IV. Entrance Corridor — Margaret Maliszewski, 434-296-5832, ext. 3276 Comments will be available after the 9/19 ARB meeting. Zoning — Francis MacCall, 434-296-5832, ext. 3418, fmaccall@albemarle.org No objection at this time. Comments may be provided on a future resubmittal. Inspections —Jay Schlothauer, 434-296-5832, ext. 3228, ischloth@aIbemarle.org No objection. Action after Receipt of Comments After you have read this letter, please take one of the actions identified on "Action After Receipt of Comment Letter" which is attached. Resubmittal If you choose to resubmit, please use the attached form as a coversheet. There is no fee for the first resubmittal. Notification and Advertisement Fees Prior to scheduling a public hearing with the Planning Commission, payment of the following fees for newspaper advertisements and notification of adjoining owners are required: $155.00 = Cost for newspaper advertisement $215.00 = Cost for notification of adjoining owners (minimum $200 + actual postage/$1 per owner after 50 adjoining owners) $370.00 Total amount due prior to Planning Commission public hearing Prior to the Board of Supervisor's public hearing, payment of the newspaper advertisement for the Board hearing is needed: $155.00 = Cost for newspaper advertisement $155.00 Additional amount due prior to Board of Supervisors public hearing $525.00 Total amount for all notifications Fees may be paid in advance. Payment for both the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors public hearings may be paid at the some time. Additional notification fees will not be required unless a deferral takes place and adjoining owners need to be notified of a new date. 5 Feel free to contact me if you have questions. I can be reached at inewberry@albemarle.org. Sincerely, 1 4. ykvjxft�r J.T. Newberry Senior Planner Planning Division CC: Oakleigh Albemarle, LLC c/o George Ray, Jr. 690 Berkmar Circle Charlottesville, VA 22901 george@insignia-va.com Enclosed: VDOT Comments Action After Receipt of Comment Letter Resubmittal Form 0 DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACTION AFTER RECEIPT OF COMMENT LETTER Within 30 days of the date of this letter, please do one of the following: (1) Resubmit in response to review comments (2) Request indefinite deferral (3) Request that your Planning Commission public hearing date be set (4) Withdraw your application (1) Resubmittal in Response to Review Comments If you plan to resubmit within 30 days, make sure that the resubmittal is on or before a resubmittal date as published in the project review schedule. The full resubmittal schedule may be found at www.albemarle.org in the "forms" section at the Community Development page. Be sure to include the resubmittal form on the top of your materials. The application fee which you paid covers staff review of the initial submittal and one resubmittal. Each subsequent resubmittal requires an additional fee. (See attached Fee Schedule.) (2) Request Indefinite Deferral If you plan to resubmit after 30 days from the date of the comment letter, you need to request an indefinite deferral. Please provide a written request and state your justification for requesting the deferral. (Indefinite deferral means that you intend to resubmit/request a public hearing be set with the Planning Commission after the 30 day period.) (3) Request Planning Commission Public Hearing Date be Set At this time, you may schedule a public hearing with the Planning Commission. However, we do not advise that you go directly to public hearing if staff has identified issues in need of resolution that can be addressed with a resubmittal. After outstanding issues have been resolved and/or when you are ready to request a public hearing, staff will set your public hearing date for the Planning Commission in accordance with the Planning Commission's published schedule and as mutually agreed by you and the County. The staff report and recommendation will be based on the latest information provided by you with your initial submittal or resubmittal. Please remember that all resubmittals must be made on or before a resubmittal date. 7 By no later than twenty-one (21) days before the Planning Commission's public hearing, a newspaper advertisement fee and an adjoining owner notification fee must be paid. (See attached Fee Schedule) Your comment letter will contain the actual fees you need to pay. Payment for an additional newspaper advertisement is also required twenty-two (22) days prior to the Board of Supervisors public hearing. These dates are provided on the attached Legal Ad Payments for Public Hearings form. Please be advised that, once a public hearing has been advertised, only one deferral prior to the Planning Commission's public hearing will be allowed during the life of the application. The only exception to this rule will be extraordinary circumstances, such as a major change in the project proposal by the applicant or more issues identified by staff that have not previously been brought to the applicant's attention. As always, an applicant may request deferral at the Planning Commission meeting. (4) Withdraw Your Application If at any time you wish to withdraw your application, please provide your request in writing. Failure to Respond If we have not received a response from you within 30 days, we will contact you again. At that time, you will be given 10 days to do one of the following: a) request withdrawal of your application, b) request deferral of your application to a specific Planning Commission date as mutually agreed to with staff, or c) request indefinite deferral and state your justification for requesting the deferral. If none of these choices is made within 10 days, staff will schedule your application for a public hearing based on the information provided with your original submittal or the latest submittal staff received on a resubmittal date. Fee Payment Fees may be paid in cash or by check and must be paid at the Community Development Intake Counter. Make checks payable to the County of Albemarle. Do not send checks directly to the Review Coordinator. Charles A. Kilpatrick, P.E. Commissioner COMMONWEALTH of VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1601 orange Road Culpeper. Virginia 22701 September 7, 2016 County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Attn: J.T. Newberry Re: Oakleigh, Rezoning Amendment Application Plan. ZMA-2016-00015 Review #1 Dear Mr. Newberry: The Department of Transportation, Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section, has reviewed the above referenced rezoning amendment application plan as submitted by, Alan G. Franklin, P.E. LLC., Civil and Site Planning Engineering dated June 30, 2016, and find the rezoning amendment to be generally acceptable. Please note that the final site plan must show conformance with the VDOT Road Design Manual Appendices B (1) and F, as well as any other applicable standards, regulations, or other requirements. A VDOT Land Use Permit will be required prior to any work within the right-of-way. The owner/developer must contact the Charlottesville Residency Transportation and Land Use Section at (434) 422-9399 for information pertaining to this process. If further information is desired please contact Willis C. Bedsaul at (434) 422-9866. Sincerely, gh� �)• ot� Adam J. Moore, P.E. Area Land Use Engineer Charlottesville Residency VirginiaDOT.org WE KEEP VIRGINIA MOVING FOR OFFICE USE ONLY SP # Fee Amount $ Date Paid By who? Receipt # Ck# Bv: Resubmittal of information for k» Zoning Map Amendment .N PROJECT NUMBER THAT HAS BEEN ASSIGNED: ZMA201600015 Oakleigh Owner/Applicant Must Read and Sign I hereby certify that the information provided with this resubmittal is what has been requested from staff Signature of Owner, Contract Purchaser Print Name FEES that may apply: Date Daytime phone number of Signatory ❑ Deferral of scheduled public hearing at applicant's request $194 $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $2,688 W First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,344 Resubmittal fees for original Zoning Map Amendment fee of $3,763 ❑ First resubmission FREE ❑ Each additional resubmission (TO BE PAID WHEN THE RESUBMISSION IS MADE TO INTAKE STAFF) $1,881 To be Daid after staff review for Dublic notice: Most applications for a Zoning Map Amendment require at least one public hearing by the Planning Commission and one public hearing by the Board of Supervisors. Virginia State Code requires that notice for public hearings be made by publishing a legal advertisement in the newspaper and by mailing letters to adjacent property owners. Therefore, at least two fees for public notice are required before a Zoning Map Amendment may be heard by the Board of Supervisors. The total fee for public notice will be provided to the applicant after the final cost is determined and must be paid before the application is heard by a public body. ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering up to fifty (50) notices $215 + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Preparing and mailing or delivering each notice after fifty (50) $1.08 for each additional notice + actual cost of first-class postage ➢ Legal advertisement (published twice in the newspaper for each public hearing) Actual cost (averages between $150 and $250) County of Albemarle Department of Community Development 401 McIntire Road Charlottesville, VA 22902 Voice: (434) 296-5832 Fax: (434) 972-4126 Revised 11/02/2015 Page 1 of 1